Skip to main content

Full text of "Patrology : the lives and works of the fathers of the church"

See other formats



Coll.  Chriati 







,  b 










Coll.  CtrUti  Regie 




Friburgi  Brisgoviae,  die   I   Mail   1908. 

4:  THOMAS,  Archiepps. 


B.  HERDER,  Freiburg  im  Breisgau  (Germany). 


Milwaukee,  Wis.,  Jan.   10.,   1907. 

My  dear  Dr.  Shahan, 

Allow  me  to  congratulate  you  upon  the  happy  thought  of  giving  us  an 
English  translation  of  Dr.  Bardenhewer 's  excellent  Manual  of  Patrology. 
You  know  that  I  have  been  long  wishing  for  just  such  a  book  which  is  a 
real  desideratum  for  educated  Catholic  Americans,  especially  the  clergy 
and  our  candidates  for  the  priesthood.  Protestantism,  Anglican  and  German, 
is  trying  to  find  in  the  primitive  Church  the  historic  foundation  for  its 
sectarian  tenets,  while  Rationalism  seeks  in  the  early  Christian  writings  for 
weapons  with  which  to  attack  the  credibility  of  the  Gospels  and  the  apo- 
stolicity  of  Catholic  Dogma.  How  can  the  Catholic  student  successfully 
meet  the  enemies  of  the  Church  if  he  has  no  more  knowledge  of  the 
Fathers  and  Doctors  of  the  Church,  those  early  authentic  custodians  and 
exponents  of  the  Depositum  fidei ,  than  what  he  has  gathered  from  a  few 
disjointed  texts  or  patristic  quotations  in  a  Manual  of  Dogmatic  Theology, 
or  from  the  short  sketches  of  the  lives  and  writings  of  the  Fathers  found 
in  a  Manual  of  Church  History? 

Yet,  this  is  only  what  may  be  called  the  apologetic  view  of  the  study 
of  the  Fathers,  suggested  by  the  contemporary  struggle  of  the  Church 
defending  her  claim  to  be  the  original  Church  of  Christ.  There  are  many 
other  valuable  advantages  of  thorough  patristic  studies.  A  close  acquaint 
ance  with  the  Fathers  of  the  Church  will  furnish  those  who  « search  the 
Scriptures »  with  a  fuller  and  clearer  understanding  of  the  manifold  and 
often  hidden  meaning  of  Holy  Writ.  It  will  provide  the  Christian  teacher, 
called  to  preach  the  word,  with  an  inexhaustible  supply  of  solid  and  at 
tractive  material.  To  the  student  of  Church  History,  it  will  furnish  a  better 
and  more  correct  insight  into  the  true  causes  and  character  of  events  by 
throwing  a  wonderful  light  upon  many  questions  of  early  Church  dis 
cipline  and  law.  Nor  shall  we  overlook  the  precious  gems  of  poetry  and 
oratory,  of  narrative  and  description,  found  in  early  Christian  literature, 
which  compare  quite  favorably  with  the  jewels  of  the  pagan  classics. 

Dr.  Bardenheiver' s  Manual  is  an  excellent  key  to  the  rich  and  varied 
literature  of  the  «Beginnings  of  Christianity*  of  which  you  have  given  us 
such  interesting  accounts.  By  your  translation  you  have  placed  that  key 


in  our  hands.  It  is  now  the  duty  of  priest  and  seminarian  to  open  the 
door  to  the  treasury  of  our  early  classics.  May  the  « Manual*  have  all  the 
success  that  it  so  richly  deserves! 

Yours  very  sincerely  in  Christo, 

:£•  S.  G.  MESSMER, 

Archbishop  of  Milwaukee. 

St.  Louis,  Mo.,  Jan.,  20.,  1907. 
My  dear  Dr.  Shahan, 

I  wish  to  congratulate  you  on  the  appearance  of  your  translation  of 
Bardenhewer' s  Patrology.  I  have  heard  much  of  the  original,  and  am 
sure  that  in  your  hands  it  has  lost  none  of  its  value.  I  bespeak  for  it  a 
large  circulation  and  shall  take  pleasure  in  commending  it  when  oc 
casion  offers. 

With  best  wishes,  I  am 

Sincerely  yours  in  Christo, 


Archbishop  of  St.  Louis. 

Springfield,  Mass.,  Jan.  15.,   1907. 

My  dear  Dr.  Shahan, 

The  appearance  of  Bardenhewer' s  Patrology  in  an  English  translation 
will  elicit  a  scholar's  welcome  from  all  professors  and  students  of  Patristic 
Theology  and  Church  History* 

The  excellency  of  the  work  in  the  original,  and  the  well  known  fitness 
of  the  translator  make  our  approval  and  recommendation  an  easy  and 
willing  evidence  of  our  pleasure  and  satisfaction  in  its  publication. 

It  should  easily  find  space  upon  the  library  shelf  of  every  seminarist 
and  every  priest. 


Bishop  of  Springfield. 

Sioux  Falls,  S.  D.,  Jan.   12.,   1907. 
My  dear  Doctor, 

I  rejoice  to  learn  that  you  have  translated  into  English  Bardenhewer' s 
«The  Lives  and  Works  of  the  Fathers  of  the  Church»,  and  that  Herder 
will  publish  the  translation  within  the  coining  year.  This  is  the  best 
Manual  of  Patrology  that  I  know ;  it  will  be  a  boon  to  our  seminaries  and 
our  priests.  In  these  days,  when  the  historical  aspect  of  Theology,  its 

development  and  evolution,  are  becoming  as  prominent  and  necessary  as 
the  Scholastic  exposition  of  revelation,  our  seminarians  and  priests  ought 
to  have  in  hand  the  very  best  that  has  been  done  on  the  lives  and  works 
of  the  Fathers  of  the  Church,  since  they  are  the  exponents  and  witnesses 
of  the  growth  of  theology. 

I  remain,  dear  Doctor, 

Fraternally  yours, 


Bishop  of  Sioux  Falls. 

Covington,  Ky.,  Jan.   15.,  1907. 
My  dear  Dr.  Shahan, 

The  clergy  of  America  ought  to  be  deeply  grateful  to  you  for  the 
translation  of  Dr.  Bardenhewer'  s  Manual  of  Patrology.  The  lives  and 
works  of  the  Fathers  are  not  sufficiently  known  amongst  us.  Whilst  few 
priests  have  the  leisure  to  study  them  thoroughly,  they  should  be  ac 
quainted  in  a  general  way  with  the  teachings  of  the  Fathers  of  the 
Church.  They  are  the  fountain  heads  of  Tradition,  the  keys  to  the  under 
standing  of  the  dogmas  of  the  Faith;  they  supply  the  most  effectual 
armory  in  defence  of  Christian  truth  which  the  Catholic  Church  alone  has 
kept  in  its  apostolic  purity  of  doctrine. 

Hoping  that  both  yourself  and  your  publication  will  receive  adequate 
recognition  of  your  labors, 

Devotedly  yours  in  Christo, 


Bishop  of  Covington. 

Ogdensburg,  N.  Y.,  Jan.  20.,   1907. 
My  dear  Dr.  Shahan, 

The  reading  public  of  America  is  deeply  indebted  to  you  for  under 
taking  to  present  to  it  in  an  English  dress  the  great  work  of  Dr.  Barden 
hewer  on  the  Lives  and  Works  of  the  Fathers  of  the  Church.  A  Patro 
logy  of  that  thoroughness  was  still  a  want  among  us.  Hereafter  no  one 
will  be  excusable  for  misreading  or  misquoting  those  indispensable  sources 
of  the  history  of  religion.  You  have  my  best  wishes  for  a  wide  diffusion 
of  your  translation. 

Faithfully  yours  in  J.  C., 


Bishop  of  Ogdensburg. 


In  the  year  1883,  I  was  requested  by  the  publisher  Herder 
to  undertake  a  new  edition  of  J.  Alzogs  Manual  of  Patrology 
(3.  ed.,  Freiburg  i.  Br.,  1876).  External  circumstances  prevented  me 
from  accepting  this  flattering  offer  at  once ;  the  new  sphere  of  labor 
to  which  I  was  called  claimed  for  a  long  time  nearly  all  my  leisure 
and  strength.  The  publisher  entrusted  to  another  the  preparation 
of  an  improved  edition  of  Alzog  (Freiburg,  1888).  On  the  other 
hand,  as  soon  as  circumstances  permitted,  I  undertook  the  prepara 
tion  of  an  entirely  new  work. 

This  work,  which  I  now  offer  to  the  public,  undertakes  to  present 
in  a  very  concise  and  comprehensive  manner  the  actual  condition 
of  patrological  knowledge  and  research.  It  also  aims,  through  its 
bibliographical  paragraphs,  to  interest  and  guide  a  larger  number  of 
students  in  the  investigation  of  special  problems.  It  has  been  my 
purpose  to  quote  from  the  earlier  patrological  literature  only  what 
seems  most  important,  and  similarly,  to  omit  nothing  that  is  impor 
tant  among  the  numerous  later  researches.  As  the  subject-matter  is 
very  extensive,  I  have  found  it  necessary  to  confine  myself  often  to 
mere  indications  and  suggestions,  to  omit  too  close  specific  discussion, 
and  to  leave  aside  what  seemed  of  minor  value.  The  nature  of  the 
work  seemed  also  to  impose  a  mere  reference  apropos  of  countless 
disputed  points  and  questions.  At  some  later  time,  I  hope,  God 
willing,  to  follow  up  this  outline  with  a  m'ore  thorough  investigation 
of  the  entire  field  of  patrology. 

My  colleague,  Dr.  C.  Weyman,  kindly  undertook  to  share  with 
me  the  labor  of  correcting  the  proofs  of  this  work.  I  find  it  dif 
ficult  to  decide  whether  I  owe  more  to  the  patience  and  accuracy  of 
my  friend  in  the  revision  of  the  printed  pages,  or  to  the  solid  eru 
dition  of  the  savant  in  his  concern  for  the  correctness  of  the  text. 

Munich,  September,   1894. 




The  first  edition  of  this  book  met  with  a  very  kindly  reception. 
It  was  judged  worthy  by  Godet  and  Verschaffel  of  being  put  into 
French  J,  and  by  Angel o  Mercati  of  translation  into  Italian 2.  I  was 
less  pleased,  personally,  with  the  result  of  my  labors.  Had  time 
and  strength  sufficed,  I  would  have  undertaken  the  preparation  of 
an  entirely  new  book.  The  first  third  of  the  book,  the  outline  of 
the  Ante-Xicene  literature,  was  its  weakest  part;  it  appears  now  in 
an  entirely  new,  and  I  hope  more  satisfactory  presentation.  This  sec 
tion  of  the  work  has  caused  a  quite  disproportionate  amount  of  labor 
on  my  part,  owing  to  the  fact  that  I  was  preparing  the  same  material 
in  two  forms:  the  first  demanded  a  lengthy  and  exhaustive  research 
for  the  comprehensive  History  of  early  ecclesiastical  literature  an 
nounced  in  the  preface  to  the  first  edition,  the  second  called  for  the 
concision  and  comprehensiveness  of  a  manual.  The  remaining  sections 
of  the  work,  the  defects  of  which  are  less  manifest  in  the  detail 
of  description  than  in  orderly  disposition,  could  not  receive  at  my 
hands  so  thorough  a  revision  as  would  otherwise  have  been  bestowed 
upon  them. 

The  contents  of  the  work  are  notably  increased  by  the  insertion 
of  numerous  writers  and  works  omitted  in  the  first  edition  or  dis 
covered  since  its  appearance.  At  the  same  time  the  publisher  de 
sired  to  keep  the  work  within  its  original  limits.  This  could  only 
be  done  by  omitting  what  seemed  unimportant,  by  simplifying  quo 
tation-methods,  and  by  the  use  of  more  compact  type  for  the  biblio 
graphical  paragraphs.  In  this  manner  it  has  been  possible  to  reduce 
the  size  of  the  book  by  some  thirty  pages. 

I  am  indebted  to  several  scholars,  particularly  to  Fr.  Diekamp, 
A.  Ehrhard,  Fr.  X.  Funk,  J.  Haussleiter,  G.  Krilgcr,  and  C.  Wey- 
man  for  many  useful  hints  and  suggestions.  I  am  again  especially 
indebted  to  Dr.  Weyman  for  his  careful  correction  of  the  printer's  work. 

Munich,  April,   1901. 


1  Les  Peres  de  1'Eglise  ,    leur  vie  et  leurs  ceuvres ,    par  O.  Bardenhewer.     Edition 
franchise,    par  P.   Godet   et  C.  Verschaffel,    de  1'Oratoire ,    3  vols.,  Paris,    1898  —  1899, 
Bloud  et  Barral. 

2  Patrologia,  per  il  Dr.    O.  Bardenhewer,  Professore    di  Teologia    all'  Universita  di 
Monaco.   Versione  Italiana  sulla  seconda  edizione  Tedesca,  con  aggiunte  bibliogranche,  per 
il  Sacerdote  Dr.  Prof.  Angelo  Mercati,    Voll.  i — iii,  Roma,    1903,  Desclee,  Lefvre  et  Cie. 


The  need  of  a  reliable  manual  of  Patrology  in  English  has  been 
so  long  felt  by  teachers  of  that  science  that  little  excuse  is  needed 
for  the  present  attempt  to  place  one  within  reach  of  all  concerned. 
During  the  nineteenth  century  much  patristic  material,  both  new  and 
important,  has  been  discovered,  East  and  West.  In  the  same  period 
there  has  come  about  a  notable  perfection  of  the  methods  and  in 
struments  of  scholarly  research,  while  literary  criticism  has  scored 
some  of  its  remarkable  triumphs  in  the  province  of  early  ecclesiastical 
literature.  Above  all,  the  intense  and  crucial  conflict  concerning  the 
genuine  nature  and  actual  History  of  the  primitive  Christian  teaching 
has  perforce  attracted  the  combatants  to  one  great  armory  of 
weapons:  the  writings  of  the  Christian  Fathers.  Excavation  and 
research  among  the  ancient  monuments  of  Roman  imperial  times 
have  naturally  quickened  interest  in  all  contemporary  literary  material. 
An  intelligent  study  of  the  early  middle  ages  has  made  clear  the 
incalculable  influence  exercised  upon  the  barbarian  world  by  the 
Christianized  civilization  of  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries;  the  manners, 
politics,  and  tongues  of  the  ancestors  of  the  modern  Western  world 
can  no  longer  be  studied  scientifically  apart  from  a  sound  knowledge 
of  what  our  earliest  Christian  masters  were.  At  this  distance,  such 
knowledge  must,  of  course,  be  gathered,  to  a  great  extent,  from 
their  literature,  or  rather  from  the  remnants  of  it  that  survive. 

It  is  to  the  credit  of  German  Catholic  scholarship  that  for  a 
hundred  years  it  has  upheld  the  necessity  of  a  solid  academic  forma 
tion  for  ecclesiastics,  at  least,  in  the  science  of  the  Christian  Fathers. 
The  names  of  Lumper  and  Permaneder ,  Dreiv  and  Moehler,  Hefele 
and  Fessler,  to  speak  only  of  the  departed,  come  unbidden  to  the 
memory  of  every  student.  German  Catholic  centres  of  study,  like 
the  Catholic  Theological  Faculty  at  Tubingen,  have  won  imperishable 
fame  by  long  decades  of  service  in  the  cause  of  primitive  Christian 
literature.  Scholars  like  Probst  and  v.  Funk  have  shed  renown  upon 
their  fatherland  and  earned  the  gratitude  of  a  multitude  of  toilers 


in  this  remote  department  of  knowledge.  Only  those  who  attempt 
to  cultivate  it,  know  what  a  lengthy  training  it  exacts,  and  to  what 
an  extent  it  calls  for  all  the  virtues  and  qualities  of  the  ripest 
scholarship.  It  is  not,  therefore,  surprising  that  the  best  Manual  of 
patristic  science  should  come  to  us  from  that  quarter  of  Catholicism 
in  which  our  most  ancient  literature  has  long  been  studied  with  a 
devotion  equalled  only  by  the  critical  spirit  that  feeds  and  sustains  it. 

When  such  competent  judges  as  the  modern  Bollandists  agree 
that  the  «Patrologie»  of  Dr.  Bardenhewer  has  no  superior,  for  ab 
undance  of  information,  exactness  of  reference,  and  conciseness  of 
statement,  we  may  take  it  for  granted  that  the  work  is  well  fitted 
to  introduce  all  studious  Christian  youth  into  the  broad  and  pleasant 
sanctuary  of  patristic  science.  The  experience  of  ecclesiastical  teachers 
confirms  this  judgment;  for  the  work  has  already  been  translated, 
into  both  French  and  Italian.  The  English  translator  has  added 
nothing  to  the  text,  being  well  contented  if  he  has  reproduced  with 
substantial  accuracy  the  already  highly  condensed  doctrine  of  the 
author.  However,  a  few  slight  additions  and  bibliographical  items 
have  been  incorporated  from  the  French  and  Italian  translations.  The 
translator  has  also  added  a  few  bibliographical  references  to  patristic 
works  and  treatises  that  have  appeared  quite  lately.  It  may  be 
pleaded  that  he  is  dispensed  from  very  finical  completeness  by 
the  exhaustive  study  of  Ehrhard  (Die  altchristliche  Literatur  und 
ihre  Erforschung  seit  1880  [1884]  bis  1900),  the  second  edition  of 
Chevaliers  Bio-Bibliographie  (1905),  and  the  admirable  patristic 
Comptes-rendus  of  the  Revue  d'histoire  ecclesiastique  of  Louvain. 

The  translator  is  much  indebted  to  Very  Rev.  ReginaldWalsh,  O.  P., 
who  has  kindly  consented  to  correct  the  proofs;  to  the  author, 
Professor  Bardenhewer ,  for  various  services,  and  to  others  for  wel 
come  hints  and  suggestions. 





§   i.    Notion  and  Purpose  of  Patrology      .          .  I 

§  2.    History  and  Literature  of  Patrology          .  7 

§  3.     Literary    collections    relative    to    the  Fathers    of   the    Church.      Collective 

editions  of  their  writings.     Principal  collections  of  translations         .  1 1 




§  4.  Preliminary  Remarks      ...  *5 

§  5.  The  Apostles'  Creed  (Symbolum  Apostolicum)        .  *7 

§  6.  The  Didache  or  Teaching  of  The  Twelve  Apostles         .  19 

§  7.  The  so-called  Epistle  of  Barnabas            .                    .  22 

§  8.  Clement  of  Rome  .....  25 

§  9.  Ignatius  of  Antioch 

§  10.  Polycarp  of  Smyrna       ....                                                            -35 

§  ii.  The  Shepherd  of  Hermas       .....  3^ 

§  12.  Papias  of  Hierapolis       .... 


§  13.  Preliminary  Observations         .  •          44 

§  14.  Quadratus      ....  46 

§  15.  Aristides  of  Athens        ...  46 

§  1 6.  Aristo  of  Pella 4$ 

§  17.  Justin  Martyr          ....  -49 

§  1 8.  Tatian  the  Assyrian       .... 

§  19.  Miltiades.     Apollinaris  of  Hierapolis.     Melito  of  Sardes  .          61 

§  20.  Athenagoras  of  Athens  ....  -64 

§  21.  Theophilus  of  Antioch -65 

§  22.  The  Letter  to  Diognetus 

§  23.  Hermias -69 

§  24.  Minucius  Felix 





§  25.  Gnostic  Literature        ..........  72 

§  26.  The  Judaistic  Literature        .........  81 

§27.  The  Montanist  Literature      .........  85 

§  28.  The  New  Testament  Apocrypha  ........  85 

§  29.  Apocryphal  Gospels      ..........  90 

§  30.  Apocryphal  Acts  of  the  Apostles           .......  97 

§  31.  Apocryphal  Letters  of  the  Apostles      .          .          .          .          .          .          .  no 

§  32.  Apocryphal  Apocalypses        .          .          .          .          .          .          .          .          .  113 




§  33.    Anti-Gnostics.     Their  lost  works  .          .          .          .          .          .          .  116 

§  34.    Irenseus  of  Lyons         .          .          .          .          .          .          .          .          .          .  118 

§  35.     Anti-Montanists    ...........  123 

§  36.     Writings    of  Ecclesiastical  Authorities    and  Synods,    chiefly    concerning 

Heresies  and  Schisms        .          .          .          .          .          .          .          .          .  124 





§  37.     General  Considerations          .......  .126 


§  38.  Clement  of  Alexandria 127 

§  39-  Origen  !36 

§  40.  Dionysius  of  Alexandria 153 

§  41.  The  later  headmasters  of  the  catechetical  school  of  Alexandria    .          .  157 

§  42.  The  so-called  Apostolic  Church-Ordinance 160 


§  43.  Julius  Africanus    ...  162 

§  44.  Paul  of  Samosata,  Malchion  of  Antioch,  Lucian  of  Samosata         .  .          165 

§  45.  Pamphilus  of  Csesarea  and  the  Dialogus  de  recta  in  Deum  fide  .  .          166 

§  46.  The  Didascalia  apostolorum  .......  168 


§  47.     St.   Gregory  Thaumaturgus   (the  Wonder- Worker)          .          .          .          .          170 
§  48.     St.  Methodius  of  Olympus  .......  175 




§  49.     General  Considerations          .......  178 


§   50.     Tertullian 179 

§  51.    St.  Cyprian          ....                   .                             .  190 

§  52.    Arnobius      ........                              .  201 

§  53.     Lactantius    ..........                    .  203 


§  54.     Hippolytus 208 

§55.     Novatian       .          .          .'.,..          .          .          .          .          .          .          .  22O 

§  56.    Papal  Letters       ....                                        ....  223 


§  57.     Commodian           .                                                  .                                                  .  225 

§  58.    Victorinus  of  Pettau  and  Reticius  of  Autun           .  227 


§  59.    The  Acts  of  the  Martyrs 228 




§  60.     General  conspectus       ..........  234 

§  61.    Arianism,  Macedonianism,  Sabellianism,  Apollinarianism         .          .          .  238 

§  62.    Eusebius  of  Caesarea    .........  245 

§  63.     St.  Athanasius      ...                    •  253 

§  64.    The  representatives  of  Egyptian  Monachism           .....  264 

§  65.    Anti-Manichaean  writers .          .  268 

§  66.     St.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem ...  271 

§  67.     St.  Basil  the  Great 274 

§  68.     St.  Gregory  of  Nazianzus,  the  Theologian    ......  286 

§  69.    St.  Gregory  of  Nyssa  ........  295 

§  70.     Didymus  the  Blind        ......                     ...  307 

§  71.     St.  Epiphanius ...  310 

§  72.    Diodorus  of  Tarsus      ...  -3*5 

§  73.    Theodore  of  Mopsuestia .318 

§  74.    St.  John  Chrysostom    ....  323 

§  75.    The  so-called  Apostolic  Constitutions  .  349 

§  76.     Synesius  of  Cyrene       ....                                                           .  358 



§   77.     St.  Cyril  of  Alexandria         .          .         ,  36° 

§  78.    Theodoret  of  Cyrus      .  37° 

§   79.     Other  writers  of  the  first  half  of  the  fifth  century         .  37°" 


§  80.     Preliminary  observations       .          .  3°4 

§  81.    Aphraates    ...  385 

§  82.     St.  Ephrsem  Syrus        .  3^7 

§  83.    Later  writers        .  393 


§  84.     General  conspectus •  397 

§  85.    Firmicus  Maternus        ...  .          .  401 

§  86.     St.  Hilary  of  Poitiers  .  4°2 

§  87.     Other  opponents  of  Arianism        .          .          .          .          .          .          .          •  412 

§  88.     Poets  and  Historians    ......  4*9 

§  89.    Schisms  and  heresies;  their  defenders  and  opponents  .          .  .  425 

§  90.    St.  Ambrose .  431 

§  91.    Prudentius  and  Paulinus        .........  444 

§  92.     St.  Sulpicius  Severus  and  Tyrannius  Rufinus         ....  45 l 

§  93-    .St-  Jerome  .         .  455 

§  94.    St.  Augustine      ...........  473 

§  95.     Friends  and  disciples  of  St.  Augustine          ......  508 

§  96.     Gallic  writers       . 515 

§  97.    Pope  St.  Leo  the  Great  and  other  Italian  writers         .          .          .         .  522 




§     98.     General  conspectus     ..........  529 

§     99.     Writers  of  the  second  half  of  the  fifth  century 531 

§   100.     Pseudo-Dionysius  Areopagita       .          .          .  .          .          .          .  535 

§   101.     Procopius  of  Gaza  and  Aeneas  of  Gaza      .          .          .          .          .          .  541 

§   102.     Leontius  of  Byzantium  and  the  emperor  Justinian       .          .          .          .  544 

§   103.    Historians  and  Geographers        .          .          .          .          .          .          .          .  552 

§   104.    Hagiographers .....  557 

§   105.     Poets  .          .          .          .  .          .          .          .          .          .  562 

§   106.     Exegetes.     Canonists.     Ascetics ........  569 

§   107.    Dogmatic  and  polemical  writers  .          .          .        .  .     ,     .    '      .      .  >.  574 

§  .Io8-    St.  John  of  Damascus .         .  582 




§   109.     Sketch  of  the  early  Armenian  ecclesiastical  literature           .          .          .  589 


§   no.     General  conspectus     ........                    .  597 

§   in.     Faustus  of  Reji           .          .                                                                      .  600 

§   112.     Other  Gallic  writers  .                              .......  605 

§   113.    Irish,  Spanish,  and  African  writers     .......  613 

§   114.     Italian  writers     .           .          .          .          .          .          .          .          .                     .  620 

§   115.     Boethius  and  Cassiodorius             ........  628 

§   116.    Writers  in  the  Three  Chapters  controversy           .....  638 

§   117.     St.   Gregory  of  Tours  and  Venantius  Fortunatus          ....  643 

§  1 1 8.    Pope  St.  Gregory  the  Great^     ........  650 

§   119.     St.   Martin  of  Bracara  and  St.  Isidore  of  Seville          ....  658 

Index         .......          .....  665 


§  i.     Notion  and  Purpose  of  Patrology. 

I.  THE  FATHERS  OF  THE  CHURCH.  The  word  Patrology  (xarpo- 
Ao-fio.)  dates  from  the  seventeenth  century,  and  denoted  originally 
the  science  of  the  lives  and  writings  of  the  Fathers  of  the  Church. 
«Fathers  of  the  Church»  or  simply  «Fathers»  was  the  title  of  honour 
mven  to  the  ecclesiastical  writers  in  the  first'  era  of  the  Church. 


Its  use  can  be  recognized  as  far  back  as  the  fifth  century.  In 
modern  times  the  explanation  of  the  term  has  been  sought  in  the 
similarity  of  the  relationship  existing  between  a  teacher  and  his  dis 
ciple  to  that  which  is  found  between  father  and  son;  an  inter 
pretation  apparently  confirmed  by  such  biblical  parallels  as  the  «sons 
of  the  prophets »  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  by  passages  in  the  New 
like  I  Cor.  iv.  14.  It  fails,  however,  to  do  justice  to  the  historical 
development  of  the  name  « Fathers ».  In  reality,  this  was  trans 
ferred  from  the  bishops  of  the  primitive  Church  to  contemporaneous 
ecclesiastical  writers.  In  the  earlier  centuries,  by  a  metaphor  easily 
understood,  the  bishop,  in  his  quality  of  head  or  superior,  was  ad 
dressed  as  «Father»  or  «Holy  Father»  (e.  g.  Mart.  S.  Polyc.  12,  2: 
o  7zarf]f)  ro>y ;  and  the  inscription  «Cypriano  papae  or 
papati» ,  Cypr.  Ep.  30  31  36).  The  authority  of  the  bishop  was 
both  disciplinary  and  doctrinal.  He  was  the  depositary  of  the 
teaching  office  of  the  Church,  and  in  matters  of  doubt  or  of  contro 
versy  it  was  his  duty  to  decide,  as  Avitness  and  judge,  concerning 
the  true  faith.  Since  the  fifth  century,  however,  this  function  began 
to  devolve  (in  learned  discussions  and  conciliar  proceedings)  on  the 
ecclesiastical  writers  of  the  primitive  Church.  Most  of  them,  and 
those  the  more  eminent,  had,  indeed,  been  bishops;  but  non-episcopal 
writers  might  also  bear  reliable  witness  to  the  contemporaneous  faith 
of  the  Church,  and  when  such  testimonies  dated  from  the  earliest 
Christian  period,  they  naturally  enjoyed  special  respect  and  authority. 
The  more  frequently  the  consciousness  of  the  primitive  Church  in 
matters  of  faith  was  appealed  to  in  the  course  of  doctrinal  disputes,  the 
more  rapidly  must  so  prevalent  a  term  as  « Fathers »  have  undergone  a 
certain  alteration.  It  was  used  to  denote  the  witnesses  to  the  faith 



of  the    primitive  Church,    and    since   such  witnesses   were   rather  its 
writers  than  its  bishops,  the  term  passed  from  the  latter  to  the  former. 

The  change  of  meaning  just  alluded  to  will  be  made  evident  by  the 
following  instances.  According  to  St.  Athanasius  (Ep.  ad  Afros,  c.  6),  the 
bishops  of  the  Council  ofNicsea  (325)  appealed  to  the  testimony  of  the  «Fathers» 
(ex  ~a-£pu>v  e/ovte?  TYJV  jiapTUpiav)  in  defence  of  the  consubstantiality  of  the 
Son  with  the  Father;  especially  prominent  among  these  «Fathers»  were  two 
early  bishops  (fafoxoirot  dpyatbt),  Dionysius  of  Rome  (f  268)  and  Dionysius  of 
Alexandria  (f  265),  both  of  them  defenders  of  the  consubstantiality  of  the  Son. 
«How  can  they  now  reject  the  Council  ofNicaea»,  says  Athanasius,  « since  even 
their  own  fathers  (xal  01  ~at£p£?  auttov)  subscribed  its  decrees?*  He  had  just 
mentioned  the  name  of  the  Arianizing  bishop  Eusebius  of  Caesarea.  « Whose 
heirs  and  successors  are  they?  How  can  they  call  those  men  Fathers  (Xe^eiv 
-ocTspa?)  whose  profession  (of  faith)  they  do  not  accept?*  Apparently  Atha 
nasius  understands  by  « Fathers »  only  bishops,  especially  those  of  the  primi 
tive  Church.  The  bishops,  and  they  alone,  had  inherited  the  teaching  office 
of  the  Apostles.  St.  Augustine,  in  his  dispute  with  the  Pelagian  Julianus  of 
Eclanum  (Contra  Julian.  I.  34 ;  II.  33  36),  appeals  to  St.  Jerome  as  a  witness 
for  the  ecclesiastical  teaching  concerning  original  sin ;  at  the  same  time  he 
is  conscious  of  having  overstepped  a  certain  line  of  demarcation.  To 
forestall  his  adversary's  refusal  to  accept  the  evidence  of  Jerome,  he  insists 
that,  though  the  latter  was  not  a  bishop,  his  extraordinary  learning  and  the 
holiness  of  his  life  entitled  him  to  be  held  a  reliable  interpreter  of  the  faith 
of  the  Church.  At  the  first  session  of  the  council  of  Ephesus  (431),  testi 
monies  were  read  from  the  « writings  of  the  most  holy  and  godfearing  fathers 
and  bishops  and  other  witnesses*  (pi-fti'a  TU>V  aYitorartov  xal  63iu>ta-iov  Tra-eptov 
xal  ITTWXOTWUV  xal  Siacpoptov  jjuxpTUpwv,  Mansi,  SS.  Cone.  Coll.,  iv.  1184).  The 
«writings»  quoted  are  exclusively  those  of  early  bishops.  In  his  famous 
Commonitorium  (434)  St.  Vincent  of  Lerins  recommends  with  insistence 
(c-  3  33  sai-)  tnat  the  faithful  hold  fast  to  the  teaching  of  the  holy  Fathers; 
at  the  same  time  he  makes  it  clear  that  he  refers,  not  so  much  to  the 
bishops,  as  to  the  ecclesiastical  writers  of  Christian  antiquity. 

OF  THE  CHURCH.  All  the  ancient  ecclesiastical  writers  were  not 
trustworthy  witnesses  of  the  faith ;  hence  it  is  that  posterity  has  not 
conferred  on  all  without  distinction  the  title  of  « Fathers  of  the  Church ». 
St.  Vincent  of  Lerins  says  that,  in  order  to  try  the  faith  of  Christians, 
God  permitted  some  great  ecclesiastical  teachers,  like  Origen  and 
Tertullian,  to  fall  into  error.  The  true  norm  and  rule  of  faith,  he 
adds,  is  the  concordant  evidence  of  those  Fathers  who  have  remained 
true  to  the  faith  of  the  Church  in  their  time,  and  were  to  the  end 
of  their  lives  examples  of  Christian  virtue:  «Eorum  dumtaxat  patrum 
sententiae  conferendae  sunt,  qui  in  fide  et  communione  catholica  sancte, 
sapienter,  constanter  viventes,  docentes  et  permanentes  vel  mori  in 
Christo  fideliter  vel  occidi  pro  Christo  feliciter  meruerunt. »  *  Pope 
Hormisdas2  refuses  to  accept  appeals  to  the  Semi-Pelagian  Faustus 
of  Riez  and  other  theologians,  on  the  plea  that  they  were  not  «Fa- 

1  Common,  c.   39;   cf.   c.   41. 

-  Quos  in  auc  tori  la  tern  patrum  non  recipit  examen  :  Ep.    124,   c.   4. 

§    I.      NOTION    AND    PURPOSE    OF    PATROLOGY.  3 

thers».  Later  Councils  often  distinguish  between  theological  writers 
more  or  less  untrustworthy  and  the  « approved  Fathers  of  the  Church ».  * 
The  earliest  descriptive  catalogue  of  « Fathers »  whose  writings  merit 
commendation,  as  well  as  of  other  theological  authors  against  whose 
writings  people  are  to  be  warned ,  is  found  in  the  Decretal  De  re- 
cipiendis  et  non  recipiendis  libris,  current  under  the  name  of  Pope 
Gelasius  I.  (492 — 496).  Modern  patrologists  indicate  four  criteria  of 
a  «Father  of  the  Church »:  orthodoxy  of  doctrine,  holiness  of  life, 
ecclesiastical  approval,  and  antiquity.  All  other  theological  writers 
are  known  as  «ecclesiastici  scriptores»,  «ecclesiae  scriptores»  2.  The 
Fathers  were  not  all  held  in  equal  esteem  by  their  successors ;  both 
as  writers  and  theologians  they  differ  much  as  to  place  and  im 
portance  in  ecclesiastical  antiquity.  In  the  West  four  « Fathers  of  the 
Church »  have  been  held  as  pre-eminent  since  the  eighth  century: 
Ambrose  (f  397),  Jerome  (f  420),  Augustine  (f  430),  and  Gregory 
the  Great  (f  604);  Boniface  VIII.  declared  (1298)  that  he  wished 
these  four  known  as  Doctors  of  the  Church  par  excellence,  and 
their  feasts  placed  on  a  level  with  those  of  the  apostles  and  evange 
lists  3.  Later  popes  have  added  other  Fathers  to  the  list  of  Doctors 
of  the  Church,  either  in  liturgical  documents  or  by  special  decrees. 
Such  are,  among  the  Latins,  Hilary  of  Poitiers  (f  366),  Peter 
Chrysologus  (f  ca.  450),  Leo  the  Great  (f  461),  Isidore  of  Seville 
(f  636).  Among  the  Greeks,  Athanasius  (f  373),  Basil  the  Great 
(t  379)'  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  (f  386),  Gregory  of  Nazianzus  (f  ca.  390), 
John  Chrysostom  (f  407),  Cyril  of  Alexandria  (f  444),  John  of  Da 
mascus  (f  ca.  754),  are  honoured  as  Doctors  of  the  Church.  Some  later 
theological  writers  thus  distinguished  are:  Peter  Damian  (f  1072), 
Anselm  of  Canterbury  (f  1 109),  Bernard  of  Clairvaux  (f  1153),  Thomas 
Aquinas  (f  1274),  Bonaventure  (f  1274),  Francis  of  Sales  (f  1622), 
and  Alphonsus  Liguori  (y  1787).  In  1899  Leo  XIII.  declared  the 
Venerable  Bede  (f  735)  a  Doctor  of  the  Church.  The  liturgical  books 
of  the  Greek  Church  make  mention  of  only  three  « great  ecumenical 
teachers»  (olxou/jisvtxol  fie^d^ot  diddaxaXot)'.  Basil  the  Great,  Gregory 
of  Nazianzum,  and  John  Chrysostom.  The  patrological  criteria  of  a 
« Doctor  of  the  Church »  are:  orthodoxy  of  doctrine,  holiness  of  life, 
eminent  learning,  and  formal  action  of  the  Church:  «doctrina  ortho- 
doxa,  sanctitas  vitae,  eminens  eruditio,  expressa  ecclesiae  declaration 

y.  Fessler,  Instit.  Patrol,  ed.  B.  Jungmann  (Innspruck  1890),  i.  15 — 57. 
On  the  earliest  Latin  Doctors  of  the  Church  cf.  C.  IVeyman  in  Historisches 
Jahrbuch  (1894),  xv.  96  sq.,  and  Revue  d'histoire  et  de  litte'rat.  relig.  (1898), 
iii.  562  sq.  On  the  «great  ecumenical  teachers»  of  the  Greeks  cf.  N.  Nilles 

1  Probabiles    ecclesiae  patres :    Cone.  Lat.  Rom.   (649)   can.    18   (Mansi  x.    1157); 
ol  If/.piroi  7tardf)sg:  Cone.  Nic.  II  (787)  act.  6  (Mansz  xiii.   313). 
-  St.  Jerome,  De  viris  illustr.,  prol. 

3  Egregios  ipsius  doctores  ecclesiae:   c.  un.,   in  vi.,   de  reliquiis  3,   22. 



in  Zeitschrift   fur   katholische  Theologie    (1894),    xviii.  742  sq.;  E.  Bondy, 
Les  Peres  de  1'Eglise  in  Revue  Augustinienne  (1904),  pp.  461 — 486. 

3.  THE  PATRISTIC  EPOCH.     As  late  as  the  fifth  century  even  very 
recent  writers  could  be  counted  among  the   «holy  Fathers*.    Among 
the   «most  holy  and  godfearing  Fathers »  whose  writings  were  read  in 
the  first  session  of  the  Council  of  Ephesus  (June  22.,  43 1)1  were  Theo- 
philus    of  Alexandria  (f  412)  and  Atticus  of  Constantinople  (t  425). 
In  the  list  of  patristic  citations,   «paternae  auctoritates»,  appended  by 
Leo  the  Great  to  his  Letter  to  Flavian  of  Constantinople  (June  13.,  449) 2 
there  are  passages  from  Augustine  (f  430)  and  from  Cyril  of  Alex 
andria  (f  444).     The  later  Christian  centuries  tended  more  and  more 
to  confine   this   honourable  title  to  the  ecclesiastical  writers  of   anti 
quity.     It   was    applied    to  them  not    so    much    on  account    of  their 
antiquity   as  on  account  of  their   authority,  which ,    in  turn ,    had  its 
root  in  their  antiquity.     The   « Fathers »   of  the  first  centuries  are  and 
remain   in   a  special   way   the   authentic    interpreters    of  the  thoughts 
and  sentiments  of  the  primitive  Christians.     In  their  writings  were  set 
down  for  all  time  documentary  testimonies  to  the  primitive  conception 
of  the  faith.     Though  modern  Christian  sects  have  always  denounced 
the    Catholic    principle    of    « tradition »,    they    have    been    compelled, 
by  the  logic  of  things,    to  seek   in   ecclesiastical  antiquity   for   some 
basis  or  countenance  of  their  own  mutually  antagonistic  views.    The 
limits  of  Christian  antiquity   could    not,    of  course,    be   easily  fixed; 
they   remain    even   yet    somewhat   indistinct.     The   living   current   of 
historical ,  and  particularly  of  intellectual  life ,   always  defies  any  im 
movable  time-boundaries.     Most  modern  manuals  of  Patrology  draw 
the    line    for   the  Greek  Church    at   the  death    of  John  of  Damascus 
(j-  ca.  754),  for  the  Latin  Church  at  the  death  of  Gregory  the  Great 
(f    604).      For    Latin    ecclesiastical    literature    the    limit    should    be 
stretched    to    the    death    of  Isidore    of  Seville    (f    636).      Like    his 
Greek  counterpart,  John  Damascene ,    Isidore  was   a  very  productive 
writer,  and  thoroughly  penetrated  with   the   sense  of  his   office  as  a 
frontiersman  between  the  old  and  the  new. 

The  teachings  of  the  Fathers  of  the  Church  are  among  the  original 
sources  of  Catholic  doctrine.  On  the  reasons  for  the  same  and  the  extent 
to  which  the  patristic  writings  may  be  drawn  upon  for  the  proof  of 
Catholic  teaching  cf.  Fessler-Jungmann,  op.  cit.,  i.  41 — 57. 

4.  PURPOSE  OF  PATROLOGY.     Though   the   science   of  Patrology 
takes  its  name  from  the  Fathers  of  the  Church,  it  includes  also  the 
ecclesiastical  writers    of  antiquity.     Thereby,   the  field  of  its  labours 
is  enlarged,  and  it  becomes  possible  to  deal  with  ecclesiastical  litera 
ture    as    a    whole.     The    purpose    of   this    science    is    to    produce    a 
history  of  the  early  ecclesiastical  literature,    that  is,  of  such    ancient 

1  Mansi,  iv.    1184 — 1196.  2  Ib.,   vi.  961 — 972. 

§    I.     NOTION    AND    PURPOSE    OF    PATROLOGY.  5 

theological  literature  as  arose  on  the  basis  of  the  teachings  of  the 
Church.  In  the  peculiar  and  unique  significance  of  this  literature, 
Patrology  finds  the  justification  of  such  a  narrow  limitation  of  its 
subject-matter.  Though  this  science  does  not  ignore  the  distinction 
between  the  human  and  the  divine  in  the  books  of  the  New  Testa 
ment,  it  confides  the  study  of  these  writings  to  Biblical  Introduction, 
convinced  that  it  would  otherwise  be  obliged  to  confine  itself  to  such 
a  treatment  of  the  same  as  would  be  unjust  to  inspired  documents  that 
contain  revelation.  Patrology  might,  strictly  speaking,  ignore  the 
anti-Christian  and  anti-ecclesiastical,  or  heretical,  writings  of  antiquity ; 
nevertheless,  it  finds  it  advantageous  to  pay  constant  attention  to  them. 
At  the  proper  time,  it  becomes  the  duty  of  the  patrologist,  in  his 
quality  of  historian  of  Christian  doctrine,  to  exhibit  the  genetic  growth 
of  his  subject.  The  development  of  early  ecclesiastical  literature  was 
conditioned  and  influenced  in  a  notable  degree  by  the  literary  conflict 
against  paganism,  Judaism  and  heresy.  The  earliest  ecclesiastical 
writers  enter  the  lists  precisely  as  defenders  of  Christianity  against 
formal  literary  assaults.  We  do  not  accept  as  accurate  a  modern 
definition  of  Patrology  as  «the  literary  history  of  early  Christianity ». 
From  that  point  of  view,  it  would  have  to  include  even  the  profane 
works  of  Christian  wrriters,  and  become  the  Christian  equivalent  of 
heathen  and  Jewish  literature.  Moreover,  it  is  not  so  much  the  pro 
fession  of  Christianity  on  the  part  of  the  writer  as  the  theologico- 
ecclesiastical  character  of  his  work  that  brings  it  within  the  range  of 
Patrology,  and  stamps  upon  it  for  all  time  something  peculiar  and 
distinctive.  If  we  must  no  longer  use  the  word  Patrology,  the  science 
may  well  be  defined  as  the  history  of  early  ecclesiastical  literature. 
The  considerations  that  affect  the  selection  of  the  material,  and  the 
limitations  of  Patrology  affect  also  the  treatment  of  the  subject-matter. 
Stress  is  laid  more  on  the  theological  point  of  view,  on  the  contents 
of  the  patristic  writings,  than  on  mere  literary  form.  It  is  true  that 
literary  history  has  a  distinctly  artistic  interest.  In  general,  however, 
the  writings  of  the  Fathers  are  not  literary  art-work;  they  expressly 
avoid  such  a  character.  Until  very  lately  a  distinction  was  drawn 
between  Patrology  and  «Patristic».  To  the  latter,  it  was  said,  be 
longed  the  study  of  the  doctrinal  content  of  the  early  Christian  writers. 
The  word  « Patristic »  comes  from  the  «theologia  patristica»  of  former 
Protestant  manuals  of  dogmatic  theology  that  were  wont  to  contain 
a  special  section  devoted  to  the  opinions  of  the  Fathers.  This 
was  called  «theologia  patristica»,  and  distinguished  from  «theo- 
logia  biblica»  and  «theologia  symbolica».  In  the  latter  half  of  the 
eighteenth  century  this  «theologia  patristica»  gave  way  among  Pro 
testants  to  a  specific  history  of  dogma,  destined  to  illustrate  the  con 
stant  development  and  evolution  of  the  original  apostolic  teaching. 
Thereby,  the  special  office  of  «Patristic»  was  exhausted.  There 


remains,  therefore,  no  longer  any  good  reason  for  withdrawing  from 
Patrology  the  description  of  the  doctrines  of  the  Fathers,  and  con 
fining  it  to  an  account  of  their  lives  and  deeds.  With  the  loss  of 
its  subject-matter,  the  raison  d'etre  of  «Patristic»  disappears.  -  -  In 
the  last  few  decades,  all  former  expositions  of  Patrology  have  suf 
fered  severe  reproaches  both  from  friend  and  foe.  Broadly  con 
sidered,  such  reproaches  were  both  reasonable  and  just.  It  is  proper 
that  in  the  future  Patrology  should  develop  along  the  line  of  scienti 
fic  history,  should  grasp  more  firmly  and  penetrate  more  deeply  its 
own  subject-matter,  should  first  digest,  and  then  exhibit  in  a  scienti 
fic  and  philosophic  way,  the  mass  of  literary-historical  facts  that 
come  within  its  purview.  In  other  words,  its  office  is  no  longer 
limited  to  the  study,  in  themselves  alone,  of  the  writings  of  individual 
Fathers,  or  of  individual  writings  of  the  Fathers;  it  must  also  set 
forth  the  active  forces  that  are  common  to  all,  and  the  relations  of 
all  to  their  own  world  and  their  own  time. 

Fr.  Nitzsch,  Geschichtliches  und  Methodologisches  zur  Patristik:  Jahr- 
biicher  fur  deutsche  Theologie  (1865),  x.  37 — 63.  Nitzsch  uses  the  term 
Patristic  as  identical  with  Patrology.  Fr.  Overbeck ,  Uber  die  Anfange 
der  patristischen  Literatur:  Historische  Zeitschrift  (new  series)  (1882),  xii. 
417 — 472.  A.  Ehrhard,  Zur  Behandlung  der  Patrologie:  Literarischer 
Handweiser,  1895,  601 — 608.  J.  Haussleiter,  Der  Aufbau  der  altchristlichen 
Literatur:  dotting.  Gelehrte  Anzeigen  (Berlin,  1898). 

Protestant  and  Rationalist  scholars  have  created  in  the  place  of  Patro 
logy  a  history  of  early  Christian  literature,  the  purpose  of  which  is 
to  investigate  and  criticize,  independently  of  its  theological  or  eccle 
siastical  aspects,  the  entire  intellectual  product  of  Christian  antiquity 
from  a  purely  literary  standpoint.  They  have  been  led  to  this  trans 
formation,  or  rather  rejection  of  Patrology,  not  so  much  by  general 
scientific  principles,  as  by  the  hypotheses  of  modern  rationalistic 
Protestantism,  foremost  among  which  is  the  denial  of  the  supernatural 
origin  of  Christianity  and  the  Church.  According  to  them,  the  so- 
called  Catholic  Church  was  not  founded  by  Jesus  Christ.  It  was 
only  after  a  long  evolutionary  period,  during  which  the  Gospel  of 
Christ  underwent  steadily  a  number  of  profoundly  modifying  influences 
in  the  sense  of  paganism ,  and  particularly  of  hellenism ,  that  the 
Catholic  Church  appeared  among  men  toward  the  end  of  the  se 
cond  century.  Since  that  time,  both  this  Church  and  its  doctrines 
have  been  at  all  times  the  subject  of  the  most  far-reaching  changes 
and  the  most  inconsistent  innovations.  The  so-called  Fathers  of  the 
Church  represent  only  their  own  personal  and  very  mutable  opinions. 
There  is  no  more  objective  difference  between  ecclesiastical  and  non- 
ecclesiastical,  orthodox  and  heretical  teaching,  than  between  the  in 
spired  and  non-inspired  books  of  the  Scriptures,  etc. 

§    2.      HISTORY    AND    LITERATURE    OF   PATROLOGY.  7 

It  is  this  view  of  early  ecclesiastical  literature  (in  the  first  three 
centuries)  that  predominates  in  the  works  of  A.  Harnack  and  G.  Kriiger 

(Cf-    §    2,    4). 

§  2.    History  and  Literature  of  Patrology. 

1.  ST.  JEROME.  -  -  We  owe  to  St.  Jerome  the  idea  of  a  Patro- 
logy  or  history  of  Christian  theological  literature.     His  work  on  the 
Christian   writers   was    composed    at  Bethlehem   in  392    at   the   sug 
gestion    of  the   pretorian    prefect    Dexter 1.     It   is    modelled    on   the 
homonymous    work    of  Suetonius    (ca.    75 — 1 60),    and    professes    to 
be   a   brief  account   of  all    those    « ecclesiastical  writers »    («ecclesiae 
scriptores»)  who  have  written  on  the  Sacred  Scriptures  («de  scripturis 
sanctis  aliquid  memoriae  prodiderunt»)    from    the  Crucifixion    to  the 
fourteenth  year  of  the  reign  of  Theodosius  (392).    The  first  chapters 
are  devoted   to   the  books    of  the  New  Testament;    later   on,    even 
heretical  writers  are  added  (Bardesanes  c.   33,    Novatian  c.  70,    and 
others).     At  the  end  (c.    135)  he  gives  an  account  of  his  own  writ 
ings  as   far  as   the  year  392.     The  material   of  the   first  chapters   is 
taken  from  the  New  Testament;  the  following  sections,  on  the  Greek 
writers  of  the  first  three  centuries,   are  hastily  made  and   inaccurate 
excerpts   from   the    Church   History   of  Eusebius   of  Caesarea.     The 
chapters  on   the  Latin  writers  and   on   later  Greek   writers   represent 
the  personal  knowledge   and   research    of  St.   Jerome,    and   although 
they   do   not   entirely  satisfy   our  just   expectations,   they   are   never 
theless    an    historical    authority    of    the    first    rank.     Erasmus,    who 
first  edited  (1516)  the  «De  viris  illustribus»,  published  also  a  Greek 
translation  of  the  work  {Migne  17  c.)  which  he  attributed  to  Sophro- 
nius,  a  contemporary  of  St.  Jerome.    It  was  not,  however,  executed 
before  the  seventh  century. 

In  the  very  numerous  manuscripts  of  this  work  of  St.  Jerome  the  con 
tinuation  by  Gennadius  (n.  2)  is  usually  found.  It  is  also  printed  in  the 
latest  editions,  by  W.  Herding,  Leipzig,  1879;  £"•  ^-  Bernoulli,  Sammlung 
ausgewahlter  kirchen-  und  dogmengeschichtlicher  Quellenschriften  xi.,  Frei 
burg  i.  Br.  (1895),  and  £.  C.  Richardson,  Texte  und  Untersuchungen  zur 
Geschichte  der  altchristlichen  Literatur,  Leipzig,  1896,  xiv.  i.  These  editions 
have  not  rendered  further  improvement  impossible.  O.  v.  Gebhardt  has 
given  us  an  excellent  edition  of  the  Greek  translation,  Leipzig,  1896  (Texte 
und  Untersuchungen  1.  c.).  Cf.  St.  v.  Sychowski,  Hieronymus  als  Literar- 
historiker,  Minister,  1894  (Kirchengeschichtliche  Studien,  ii.  2);  C.  A. 
Bernoulli,  Der  Schriftstellerkatalog  des  Hieronymus,  Freiburg  i.  Br.,  1895; 
G.  Wentzel,  Die  griechische  Ubersetzung  der  Viri  inlustres  des  Hieronymus, 
Leipzig,  1895  (Texte  und  Untersuchungen,  xiii.  3). 

2.  CONTINUATORS  OF  ST.  JEROME.  —  For  more  than  a  thousand 
years,    this   little  book    of  the    Hermit   of  Bethlehem   served    as  the 
basis  of  all   later  efforts   to   produce   a   history  of  theological   litera 
ture.     All  later  compilers  linked  their  work  to  his,    and   even   when 

1  De  viris  illustr. :  Migne,  PL.,  xxiii.  601  —  72°- 


there  was  added  a  name  forgotten  by  him,  or  by  one  of  his  con- 
tinuators,  the  form  and  divisions  of  the  work  remained  unchanged. 
Between  the  years  467 — 480  (apparently),  Gennadius,  a  priest  of  Mar 
seilles,  brought  out  a  very  useful  continuation  and  completion  of  the 
«De  viris»  *.  He  was  a  Semi-Pelagian,  a  fact  that  is  responsible  for 
occasional  deviations  from  his  usual  impartial  or  objective  attitude. 
Otherwise,  Gennadius  was  an  historian  of  extensive  knowledge,  accurate 
judgment  and  honourable  purpose.  Isidore,  archbishop  of  Seville 
(f  636),  added  considerably  to  the  labours  of  Gennadius 2,  and  his 
disciple  Ildephonsus  of  Toledo  (f  667)  contributed  a  short  appendix 
on  some  Spanish  theologians  3.  Centuries  were  now  to  pass  away  before 
the  Benedictine  chronicler,  Sigebert  of  Gembloux  in  Belgium  (f  1112), 
took  up  the  task  once  more,  and  carried  the  history  of  ecclesiastical 
literature  down  to  his  own  time.  In  his  book  «De  viris  illustribus» 4 
he  treats  first,  «imitatus  Hieronymum  et  Gennadium»,  as  he  himself 
says  (c.  171),  of  the  ancient  ecclesiastical  writers;  and  next  gives 
biographical  and  bibliographical  notes  on  early  mediaeval  Latin  theo 
logians,  usually  slight  and  meagre  in  contents,  and  not  unfrequently 
rather  superficial.  Somewhat  similar  compendia  were  composed  by 
the  priest  Honorius  of  Augustodunum  (Autun?)  between  1122  and 
H255,  by  the  «Anonymus  Mellicensis»,  so  called  from  the  Bene 
dictine  abbey  of  Melk  in  Lower  Austria,  where  the  first  manuscript 
of  his  work  was  found,  though  the  work  itself  was  probably  composed 
in  the  abbey  of  Priifening  near  Ratisbon  in  1 135  6,  and  by  the  author  of 
a  similarly  entitled  work  wrongly  ascribed  to  the  scholastic  theologian 
Henry  of  Ghent  (f  1293).  These  compilations  were  all  surpassed, 
in  1494,  as  regards  the  number  of  authors  and  the  abundance  of 
information,  by  the  «De  scriptoribus  ecclesiasticis»  of  the  celebrated 
abbot  Johannes  Trithemius  (t  1516).  It  contains  notices  of  963 
writers,  some  of  whom,  however,  were  not  theologians.  Its  chief 
merit  lies  in  the  information  given  concerning  writers  of  the  later 
period  of  Christian  antiquity.  For  Trithemius,  as  for  his  predecessors, 
St.  Jerome  and  Gennadius  are  the  principal  sources  of  knowledge 
concerning  the  literary  labours  of  the  Fathers. 

These  literary-historical  compilations  are  to  be  found  together  with 
the  work  of  St.  Jerome  (Latin  and  Greek)  in  y.  A.  Fabricius,  Bibliotheca 
ecclesiastica ,  Hamburg,  1718.  For  the  later  editions  of  Gennadius  by 
Herding,  Bernoulli,  Richardson  see  p.  7  •  cf.  also  Jungmaim,  Quaestiones 
Gennadianae  (Programme),  Lipsiae,  1881 ;  Br.  Czapla,  Gennadius  alsLiterar- 
historiker,  Minister,  1898  (Kirchengeschichtliche  Studien,  iv.  i);  Fr.  Diekamp, 
Wann  hat  Gennadius  seinen  Schriftstellerkatalog  verfaBt  ?  Romische  Quartal- 
schrift  fur  christliche  Altertumskunde  und  fur  Kirchengeschichte,  1898,  xii. 

1  Migne,  PL.,  Iviii.    1059 — 1120.  -  Ib.,  Ixxxiii.    1081 — 1106. 

3  Ib.,  xcvi.    195—206.  4  Ib.,   clx.   547—588. 

5  De  luminaribus  ecclesiae :  Migne,  PL.,  clxxii.    197 — 234. 

6  De  scriptoribus  ecclesiasticis :  ib.,  ccxiii.   961 — 984. 

§    2.      HISTORY    AND    LITERATURE    OF    PATROLOGY.  9 

411 — 420.  For  the  two  Spanish  historians  of  Christian  literature  cf.  G. 
v.  Dzialowski,  Isidor  und  Ildefons  als  Literarhistoriker,  Miinster  (Kirchen- 
geschichtliche  Studien,  iv.  2).  For  Sigebert  of  Gembloux  cf.  Wattenbach, 
Deutschlands  Geschichtsquellen  im  Mittelalter,  6.  ed.,  Berlin,  1893 — 1894,  ii. 
155 — 162,  and  for  his  literary-historical  work  S.  Hirseh,  De  vita  et  scriptis 
Sigeberti  monachi  Gemblacensis ,  Berolini,  1841,  330 — 337.  There  is  an 
article  by  Stanonik  on  Honoritis  of  Augustodunum  in  the  Kirchenlexikon 
viWetzer  \m.^Welte)  2.  ed.,  vi.  268 — 274.  A  good  edition  of  the  «Anony- 
mus  Mellicensis»  was  published  by  E.  Ettlinger,  Karlsruhe,  1896.  For  the 
work  «De  viris  illustribus»  current  under  the  name  of  Henry  of  Ghent  see 
B.  Hatireau  in  Memoires  de  1'institut  national  de  France,  Acad.  des  in 
scriptions  et  belles-lettres,  Paris,  1883,  xxx.  2,  349 — 357.  The  work  of  Tri- 
themius  is  discussed  by  J.  Silbernagl,  Johannes  Trithemius,  2.  ed.,  Regens- 
burg,  1885,  pp.  59—65. 

3.  THE  XVI.,  XVII.,  AND  XVIII.  CENTURIES.  Since  the  fifteenth 
century  the  study  of  ecclesiastical  literature  has  made  unexpected 
progress.  The  humanists  brought  to  light  a  multitude  of  unknown 
works  of  Latin,  and  especially  of  Greek  ecclesiastical  writers.  The 
contention  of  the  reformers  that  primitive  Christianity  had  undergone 
a  profound  corruption,  furthered  still  more  the  already  awakened  interest 
in  the  ancient  literature  of  the  Church.  In  'the  seventeenth  and 
eighteenth  centuries,  the  Benedictine  scholars  of  the  French  Congrega 
tion  of  St.  Maur  gave  a  powerful  and  lasting  impulse  to  the  move 
ment  by  the  excellent,  and  in  part  classical,  editions  of  texts,  in  which 
they  revealed  to  an  astonished  world  historical  sources  of  almost 
infinite  richness  and  variety.  New  provinces  and  new  purposes  were 
thereby  opened  to  Patrology.  The  Maurists  made  known  at  the 
same  time  the  laws  for  the  historical  study  of  the  original 
sources;  in  nearly  every  department  of  ancient  ecclesiastical  litera 
ture,  it  became  possible  for  scholars  to  strip  the  historical  truth  of 
the  veil  of  legend  that  had  hung  over  it.  It  still  remained  customary 
for  literary  historians,  to  deal  with  the  ancient  ecclesiastical  literature 
as  a  whole.  The  most  distinguished  Catholic  names  in  this  period 
of  patrological  scholarship  are  those  of  Bellarmine  (f  1621),  Dupin 
(f  1719),  Le  Nourry  (f  1724),  Ceillier  (f  1761),  Schram  (f  1797), 
Lumper  (f  1800).  Among  the  Protestant  patrologists  are  reckoned  the 
Reformed  theologians  Cave  (f  1713),  and  Oudin  (f  1717),  a  Premon- 
stratensian  monk  who  became  a  Protestant  in  1690).  The  Lutheran 
writers,  Gerhard  (f  1637),  Hulsemann  (f  1661),  Olearius  (f  1711),  and 
others  introduced  and  spread  the  use  of  the  term  « Patrology »,  meaning 
thereby  a  comprehensive  view  of  all  Christian  theological  literature 
from  the  earliest  period  to  mediaeval,  and  even  to  modern  times. 

Robertus  Card.  Bellarminus  S.  J.,  De  scriptoribus  ecclesiasticis  liber  unus, 
cum  adiunctis  indicibus  undecim  et  brevi  chronologia  ab  orbe  condito 
usque  ad  annum  1612,  Romae,  1613;  Coloniae,  1613,  et  saepius.  L.  E. 
Dupin,  Nouvelle  bibliotheque  des  auteurs  ecclesiastiques ,  Paris,  1686  sq. 
The  several  sections  of  this  extensive  work  appeared  under  different  titles. 
The  number  of  volumes  also  varies  according  to  the  editions.  Because  of 



its  very  unecclesiastical  character  the  work  of  Dupin  was  placed  on  the 
Index,  May  10.  1757.  N.  Le  Nourry  O.  S.  B.,  Apparatus  ad  bibliothecam 
maximam  veterum  patrum  et  antiquorum  scriptorum  ecclesiasticorum  Lug- 
duni  (1677)  editam,  2  tomi,  Paris,  1703—1715-  &•  Ceillier  O.  S.  B.,  Histoire 
generate  des  auteurs  sacres  et  ecclesiastiques,  23  vols.,  Pans,  1729—1763; 
a  new  edition  was  brought  out  atParis,  1858—1869,  16  vols.  D.  Schram  O.  S.  B., 
Analysis  operum  SS.  Patrum  et  scriptorum  eccl. ,  18  tomi,  Aug.  Vind., 
I78o— 1796.  G.  Lumper  O.  S.  B.,  Historia  theologico-critica  de  vita,  scriptis 
atque  doctrina  SS.  Patrum  aliorumque  scriptorum  eccl.  triura  primorum 
saeculorum,  13  tomi,  Aug.  Vind.,  1783—  1 799. 

G.  Cave,  Scriptorum  ecclesiasticorum  historia  litteraria  a  ,Christo  nato 
usque' ad  saec.  XIV,  Lond. ,  1688.  C.  Oudin ,  Commentarius  de  scripto- 
ribus  eccles.,  3  tomi,  Lipsiae,  1722. 

Joh.  Gerhardi  Patrologia,  s.  de  primitivae  ecclesiae  christianae  doctorum 
vita  ac  lucubrationibus  opusculum  posthumum,  Jenae,  1653;  3.  ed.,  Gerae, 
1673.  J.  Hillsemann,  Patrologia,  ed.  J. 'A.  Scherzer,  Lipsiae,  1670.^  J.  G. 
Oharius,  Abacus  patrologicus,  Jenae,  1673.  Idem,  Bibliotheca  scriptorum 
eccles.,  2  tomi,  Jenae,  1710 — 1711. 

Many  ancient  ecclesiastical  writers  are  treated  at  much  length  by 
L.  S.  le  Nain  de  Tillemont,  Memoires  pour  servir  a  1'histoire  ecclesiastique  des 
six  premiers  siecles,  1 6  tomes,  Paris,  1693—1712,  often  reprinted-,  cf.  also 
J.  A.  Fabricius,  Bibliotheca  Graeca  seu  notitia  scriptorum  veterum  Grae- 
corum,  14  voll.,  Hamburgi,  1705 — 1728.  A  new,  but  unfinished  edition  of 
Fabricius  was  published  by  G.  Chr.  Harks,  12  voll.,  Hamburg,  1790—1809. 
C.  Tr.  G.  Schoenemann ,  Bibliotheca  historico-literaria  Patrum  latinorum, 
2  tomi,  Lipsiae,  1792 — 1794. 

4.  PATROLOGY  IN  MODERN  TIMES.  During  the  nineteenth  century, 
the  materials  of  ancient  ecclesiastical  literary  history  have  steadily 
increased.  Not  only  have  many  new  Greek  and  Latin  texts  been 
discovered,  notably  by  such  scholars  as  Cardinal  Mai  (f  1854)  and 
Cardinal  Pitra  (f  1889),  but  entirely  new  fields  have  been  thrown 
open,  particularly  in  the  domain  of  the  ancient  Syriac  and  Armenian 
literatures;  the  elaboration  of  this  material  has  called  forth,  especially 
in  Germany,  England,  and  North  America,  a  zeal  that  grows  ever 
more  active  and  general.  Protestant  theologians  paid  particular  atten 
tion  to  the  problems  of  Christian  antiquity,  and  classical  philologians 
learned  to  overcome  their  former  attitude  of  depreciation  of  theo- 
logico-Christian  literature.  The  press  poured  forth  patristic  mono 
graphs  in  such  numbers  that  their  ever-growing  flood  became  at 
times  almost  a  source  of  embarrassment.  Among  the  comprehensive 
works  published  by  Catholic  authors  were  those  of  Mohler  (f  1838), 
Permaneder  (f  1862),  Fessler  (f  1872),  Alzog  (f  1878),  Nirschl,  and 
others.  In  the  latter  half  of  the  eighteenth  century  the  custom 
arose  of  dividing  the  later  from  the  earlier  Fathers,  and  making 
these  latter  the  subject  of  a  separate  branch  of  literary  and  historical 
study.  Within  the  last  few  years,  Protestant  theologians  have  made 
exhaustive  studies  on  the  writers  of  the  first  three  centuries.  In  the  first 
part  of  his  monumental  work,  Adolf  Harnack  has  presented  with  an 
unexampled  fulness  the  entire  material  of  pre-Eusebian  Christian  literature. 

§    3-      LITERARY    COLLECTIONS.  I  I 

y.  A.  Mohler ,  Patrologie  oder  christliche  Literargeschichte,  edited  by 
F.  X.  Reithmayr ,  vol.  i  (the  first  three  Christian  centuries),  Ratisbon 
1840.  The  work  was  not  continued.  M.  Permaneder,  Bibliotheca  patristica, 
Landishuti,  1841 — 1844,  2  tomi.  J.Fesskr,  Institutiones  Patrologiae,  Inns- 
pruck,  1850 — 1851,  2  tomi;  denuo  recensuit,  auxit,  edidit  B.Jungmann,  ib., 
1890 — 1896.  y.  Alzog,  Gnindrifi  der  Patrologie  oder  der  alteren  christ- 
lichen  Literargeschichte,  Freiburg,  1866,  4.  ed. ,  ib.  1888.  J.  Nirschl, 
Lehrbuch  der  Patrologie  und  Patristik,  Mainz,  1881 — 1885,  3  vols. 
y.  Rezbdnyay ,  Compendium  patrologiae  et  patristicae,  Quinqueecclesiis 
[i.  e.  Fiinfkirchen],  1894.  B.  Swete,  Patristic  Study,  London,  1902. 

Ch.  Th.  Cruttwell,  A  literary  history  of  early  Christianity,  including 
the  Fathers  and  the  chief  heretical  writers  of  the  Ante-Nicene  period, 
London,  1893,  2  vols.  A.  Harnack,  Geschichte  der  altchristlichen  Lite- 
ratur  bis  auf  Eusebius,  I.  Part :  Die  Uberlieferung  und  der  Bestand,  Leipzig, 
1893.  II.  Part:  Die  Chronologic,  i.  vol.:  Die  Chronologic  der  altchrist 
lichen  Literatur  bis  Irenaus,  Leipzig,  1897  ;  2.  vol. :  Die  Chronologic  der 
Literatur  von  Irenaus  bis  Eusebius,  ib.,  1904.  G.  Krilger,  Geschichte  der 
altchristlichen  Literatur  in  den  ersten  drei  Jahrhunderten,  Freiburg,  1895  ; 
with  supplement,  1897:  English  transl.  by  Gillet,  History  of  Early  Christian 
Literature,  New  York  and  London,  1897. 

P.  Batiffol,  La  litterature  grecque,  Paris,  1897  (Bibliotheque  de  1'enseigne- 
ment  de  1'histoire  ecclesiastique.  Anciennes  litteratures  chretiennes).  The 
Greek  theologians  of  the  Byzantine  period  (527 — 1453)  are  treated  by  A.  Ehr- 
hard  in  K.  Krumbacher ,  Geschichte  der  byzantinischen  Literatur,  2.  ed., 
Munich,  1897,  pp.  37 — 218.  For  the  Greek  hymnology  of  the  same  period  cf. 
ib.  pp.  653 — 705.  The  histories  of  Roman  literature,  by  Bdhr ,  Teuffel- 
Schwabe,  and  Schanz ,  devote  attention  to  the  Latin  theological  writers: 
y.  C/ir.  F.  Bdhr,  Geschichte  der  romischen  Literatur,  vol.  iv:  Die  christ- 
lich-romische  Literatur,  Karlsruhe,  1836 — 1840;  W.  S.  Teuffel,  Geschichte 
der  romischen  Literatur,  neu  bearbeitet  von  L.  Schwabe,  5.  ed.,  Leipzig,  1890, 
2  vols.;  M.  Schanz,  Geschichte  der  romischen  Literatur,  3.  Part:  Die  Zeit 
von  Hadrian  (117)  bis  auf  Konstantin  (324),  Munich,  1896,  2.  ed.  1905. 
4.  Part,  i.  Half:  Die  Literatur  des  4.  Jahrhunderts,  1904.  Cf.  especially 
A.  Ebert,  Allgemeine  Geschichte  der  Literatur  des  Mittelalters  im  Abend- 
lande,  vol.  i:  Geschichte  der  christlich-lateinischen  Literatur  von  ihren  An- 
fangen  bis  zum  Zeitalter  Karls  des  Groften,  Leipzig,  1874,  2.  ed.  1889. 
Much  less  satisfactory  is  the  work  of  M.  Manitius ,  Geschichte  der  christlich- 
lateinischen  Poesie  bis  zur  Mitte  des  18.  Jahrhunderts,  Stuttgart,  1891. 
In  the  proper  place  will  be  mentioned  the  descriptions  of  ancient  Syriac 
and  Armenian  literature.  The  work  of  Smith  and  Wace  is  very  useful, 
relatively  complete  and  generally  reliable :  A  Dictionary  of  Christian  Bio 
graphy,  Literature,  Sects  and  Doctrines,  edited  by  W.  Smith  and  H.  Wace, 
London,  1877 — 1887,  4  vols.  O.  Bardenhewer ,  Geschichte  der  altkirchl. 
Literatur,  I. — II.  torn.:  Bis  zum  Beginn  des  4.  Jahrhunderts,  Freiburg, 

§  3.    Literary  collections  relative  to  the  Fathers   of  the   Church.    Collective  edi 
tions  of  their  writings.     Principal  collections  of  translations. 

i.  S.  F.  W.  Hoffmann,  Bibliographisches  Lexikon  der  gesamten  Litera 
tur  der  Griechen,  2.  ed. ,  Leipzig,  1838 — 1845,  3  vojs-  ^  Engelmann, 
Bibliotheca  scriptorum  classicorum,  8.  ed. ,  containing  the  literature  from 
1700  —  1878,  revised  by  E.  Preufl,  Leipzig,  1880—1882,  2  vols.  Ulisse 
Chevalier,  Repertoire  des  sources  historiques  du  moyen  age,  vol.  i:  Bio- 
Bibliographie,  Paris,  1877  — 1886,  with  a  supplement,  Paris,  1888,  2.  ed. 
1904.  E,  C.  Richardson,  Bibliographical  synopsis,  in  the  Ante-Nicene 


Fathers,  Supplement,  Buffalo,  1897,  pp.  i — 136  (see  n.  3).  A.  Ehrhard, 
Die  altchristliche  Literatur  und  ihre  Erforschung  seit  1880.  Allgemeine 
Ubersicht  und  erster  Literaturbericht  (1880  —  1884),  Freiburg  (Straftburger 
theol.  Studien  i,  4 — 5).  Id.,  Die  altchristliche  Literatur  und  ihre  Erforschung 
von  1884  bis  1900.  I:  Die  vornicanische  Literatur,  Freiburg,  1900  (Straft- 
burger  theol.  Studien,  Supplem.  I).  Bardenhewer,  Geschichte  der  altkirch- 
lichen  Literatur,  Freiburg,  1902 — 1903,  vol.  i — ii.  The  literary  compilations 
descriptive  of  the  Syriac  patristic  literature  are  discussed  in  §  80—83. 

2.  The  principal  editions  of  the  Fathers  are  the  following:  M.  de  la 
Bigne,  Bibliotheca  SS.  Patrum  supra  ducentos,  Paris.,  1575,  8  voll.,  with 
an  appendix,  ib.  1579;  6.  ed.,  ib.  1654,  17  voll. 

Magna  Bibliotheca  veterum  Patrum  et  antiquorum  scriptorum  eccle- 
siasticorum,  opera  et  studio  doctissimorum  in  Alma  Universitate  Colon. 
Agripp.  theologorum  ac  professorum,  Colon.  Agr.,  1618,  14  voll.,  with  a 
Supplementum  vel  appendix,  ib.  1622. 

Fr.  Combefis ,  Graeco-Latinae  Patrum  Bibliothecae  novum  auctarium, 
Paris.,  1648,  2  voll.;  Id.,  Bibliothecae  Graecorum  Patrum  auctarium  no- 
vissimum,  ib.  1672,  2  voll. 

L.  d' Achery ,  Veterum  aliquot  scriptorum  qui  in  Galliae  bibliothecis, 
maxime  Benedictinortim,  supersunt  Spicilegium,  Paris.,  1655 — 1677,  13  voll. ; 
new  edition  by  L.  Fr.  J.  de  la  Barre ,  Paris,  1723,  3  voll.  It  has  been 
proved  lately  that  d' Achery  included,  in  good  faith,  several  documents 
forged  by  the  Oratorian  Jerome  Vigmer  (f  1661);  the  proof  is  clearest  for 
just  those  pieces  that  were  held  to  be  the  special  pride  of  the  collection. 
Cf.  y.  Havet,  Les  decouvertes  de  Jerome  Vignier :  Bibliotheque  de  l'£cole 
des  Chartes,  Paris,  1885,  xlvi.  205 — 271. 

Maxima  Bibliotheca  veterum  Patrum  antiquorumque  ecclesiae  scripto 
rum,  Lugduni,  1677,  27  voll. 

y.  B.  Cotelier,  Ecclesiae  Graecae  monumenta,  Paris  1677 — 1686,  3  voll. 
In  some  copies  the  Analecta  Graeca  of  B.  de  Montfaucon  (Paris,  1688) 
are  called  the  fourth  volume  of  the  Cotelier  collection. 

A.  Gallandi ,  Bibliotheca  veterum  Patrum  antiquorumque  scriptorum 
ecclesiasticorum,  Venetiis,  1765  — 1781  et  1788,  14  voll.  Index  alphabeticus 
Bibliothecae  Gallandii,  Bononiae,  1863. 

M.  y.  Routh,  Reliquiae  Sacrae  seu  Auctorum  fere  jam  perditorum  se- 
cundi  tertiique  saeculi  fragmenta  quae  supersunt.  Accedunt  epistolae  syn- 
odicae  et  canonicae  Nicaeno  concilio  antiquiores,  Oxonii,  1814 — 1818,  4  voll., 
ed.  altera,  1846 — 1848,  5  voll. 

A.  Mai,  Scriptorum  veterum  nova  Collectio  e  Vaticanis  codicibus 
edita,  Romae,  1825 — 1838,  10  voll.  Id.,  Classici  atictores  e  Vaticanis  co 
dicibus  editi,  ib.  1828 — 1838,  10  voll.  Id.,  Spicilegium  Romanum,  ib. 
1839—1844,  10  voll.  Id. ,  Nova  Patrum  Bibliotheca,  ib.  1844 — 1854, 
7  voll.;  torn,  viii — ix,  ed.  y.  Cozza-Luzi,  ib.  1871 — 1888. 

Patrologiae  cursus  completus.  Accurante  J.  P.  Mignc,  Paris.,  1844  ad 
1866.  It  consists  of  a  Greek  and  a  Latin  series.  The  Latin  Fathers  were 
published  between  1844  and  1855,  and  come  down  to  Innocent  III. 
(t  1216),  in  217  vols.,  with  Indices  in  four  vols.  (218 — 221).  The  Greek 
Fathers  were  published  from  1857  to  1866  and  reach  to  the  Council  of 
Florence  (1438 — 1439).  Tne  latter  series  is  without  Indices.  D.  Scholarios 
published  at  Athens,  1879,  a  Catalogue  of  the  Greek  writings  in  the  Migne 
edition,  and  of  those  in  the  Corpus  scriptorum  historiae  Byzantinae  (Bonn, 
1828—1855,  48  vols.),  also  some  fascicules  of  a  broadly  conceived  index 
to  both  these  series  of  Greek  writers,  Athens,  1883 — 1887.  A  short  catalogue 
of  the  authors  printed  in  the  Migne  series  of  Greek  Fathers  may  be  found 
in  A.  Potthast,  Bibliotheca  historica  medii  aevi,  2.  ed.,  Berlin,  1896,  ci — cvi. 

§    3-      LITERARY    COLLECTIONS.  13 

y.  B.  Pitra,  Spicilegium  Solesmense  complectens  SS.  Patrum  scripto- 
rumque  ecclesiasticorum  anecdota  hactenus  opera,  Paris,  1852 — 1858,  4  voll. 
Id.,  Juris  ecclesiastici  Graecorum  historia  et  monumenta,  Romae,  1864 — 1868, 
2  voll.  Id.,  Analecta  sacra  Spicilegio  Solesmensi  parata,  Paris,  1876 — 1891, 
6  voll.  Id.,  Analecta  sacra  et  classica  Spicil.  Solesm.  parata,  ib.  1888.  His 
Analecta  novissima  (ib.  1885 — 1888,  2  voll.)  contain,  with  the  exception 
of  some  papal  letters  in  the  first  volume,  only  mediaeval  documents. 

Corpus  scriptorum  ecclesiasticorum  latinorum,  editum  consilio  et  im- 
pensis  Academiae  Litterarum  Caesareae  Vindobonensis,  1866  sqq. 

SS.  Patrum  opuscula  selecta  ad  usum  praesertim  studiosorum  theologiae. 
Edidit  et  commentariis  auxit  H.  Hurter  S.  J.,  Innspruck,  1868 — 1885,  48  voll. 
Most  of  the  volumes  went  through  several  editions.  Series  altera,  ib. 
1884—1892,  6  voll. 

Monumenta  Germaniae  historica.  Inde  ab  anno  Christi  quingentesimo 
usque  ad  annum  millesimum  et  quingentesimum  edidit  Societas  aperiendis 
fontibus  rerum  Germanicarum  medii  aevi.  Auctores  antiquissimi ,  Berol. 
1877 — 1898,  13  voll.  This  section  of  the  Monumenta,  formerly  edited  by 
Mommsen ,  includes  the  Latin  writers  of  the  transition  period  from  the 
Roman  to  the  Teutonic  era. 

Sammlung  ausgewahlter  kirchen-  und  dogmengeschichtlicher  Quellen- 
schriften,  als  Grundlage  fiir  Seminariibungen  herausgegeben  unter  Leitung 
von  G.  Kriiger,  Freiburg,  1891  sq. 

G.  Rauschen,  Florilegium  patristicum.  Digessit,  vertit,  adnotavit  G.  R. 
Fasc.  i:  Monumenta  aevi  apostolici.  Fasc.  ii:  S.  Justini  apologiae  duae. 
Fasc.  iii:  Monumenta  minora  saeculi  secundi.  Bonnae,  1904—1905. 

Die  griechischen  christlichen  Schriftsteller  der  ersten  drei  Jahrhunderte, 
herausgegeben  von  der  Kirchenvater-Kommission  der  konigl.  preuftischen 
Akademie  der  Wissenschaften,  Leipzig  1897  ff. 

Two  editions  now  in  progress  of  select  works  by  Fathers  may  be 
mentioned.  One  is  the  «Cambridge  Patristic  Texts».  Of  this  series  two 
volumes  have  appeared,  viz. :  «The  five  Theological  Orations  of  Gregory 
of  Nazianzus« ,  ed.  Mason,  1899;  «The  Catechetical  Oration  of  Gregory 
of  Nyssa»,  ed.  Srawley,  1903.  «The  Letters  and  other  Remains  of  Dio- 
nysius  of  Alexandria »,  ed.  Feltre,  1904. 

The  other  collection  is  «Bibliotheca  Sanctorum  Patrum,  theologiae 
tironibus  et  universe  clero  accommodata»,  Vizzini  etc.,  Romae,  1901  sqq. 
Thirteen  vols.  of  this  series  have  been  issued.  It  should  be  observed  that 
in  it  all  Greek  works  are  accompanied  by  a  Latin  translation. 

For  more  detailed  information  as  to  the  contents  of  the  older  collec 
tive  editions  of  the  Fathers  cf.  Th.  Ittig,  De  Bibliothecis  et  Catenis  Patrum 
variisque  veterum  scriptorum  ecclesiasticorum  collectionibus,  Lipsiae,  1707. 
y.  G.  Dowling,  Notitia  scriptorum  SS.  Patrum  aliorumque  veteris  ecclesiae 
monumentorum,  quae  in  collectionibus  Anecdotorum  post  a.  Chr.  1700  in 
lucem  editis  continentur,  Oxonii,  1839.  The  collective  editions  of  the 
Syriac  Fathers  are  described  in  §§  80 — 83. 

3.  COLLECTIONS  OF  TRANSLATIONS.  Among  the  principal  col 
lections  of  translations  the  following  deserve  mention: 

Bibliothek  der  Kirchenvater.  Auswahl  der  vorziiglichsten  patristischen 
Werke  in  deutscher  Ubersetzung  unter  der  Oberleitung  von  Fr.  X.  Rcith- 
mayr,  fortgesetzt  von  B.  Thalhofer,  Kempten,  1860 — 1888,  80  voll. 

Library  of  the  Fathers,  edited  by  Pusey,  Keble  and  Newman,  Oxford, 
1838 — 1888,  45  voll.  The  Ante-Nicene  Christian  Library.  Translations  of 
the  writings  of  the  Fathers  down  to  A.  D.  325,  edited  by  A.  Roberts  and 


y.  Donaldson,  Edinburgh,  1866—1872,  24voll,  with  a  supplementary  volume, 
ed.  by  A.  Menzies,  ib.  1897.  This  collection  of  translations  was  reprinted 
at  Buffalo,  1884 — 1886,  under  the  direction  of  A.  Cleveland  Coxe,  8  voll. 
with  a  supplement,  1887  (New  York,  1896,  10  voll.).  For  the  bibliography 
of  English  translations  of  the  Ante-Nicene  Fathers  see  Ernest  C.  Richardson 
(ib.  vol.  x):  Bibliographical  Synopsis,  passim. 

Ph.  Schaff  and  H.  Wace,  A  select  Library  of  Nicene  and  Post-Nicene 
Fathers  of  the  Christian  Church.  In  connection  with  a  number  of  patristic 
scholars  of  Europe  and  America.  Buffalo  and  New  York,  1886 — 1890, 
14  voll.  Second  Series,  New  York, 





§  4.  Preliminary  Remarks. 

The  primitive  Christians  were  in  general  disinclined  to  literary 
composition.  The  Gospel  was  preached  to  the  poor  (Mt.  n,  5),  and 
»not  in  the  persuasive  words  of  human  wisdom,  but  in  shewing  of  the 
spirit  and  power »  (i  Cor.  2,  4).  The  Apostles  wrote  only  under  the 
pressure  of  external  circumstances;  even  in  later  times  living  oral  in 
struction  remained  the  regular  means  of  transmission  and  propagation 
of  the  Christian  truth. 

Apart  from  the  books  of  the  New  Testament,  we  possess  but  very 
few  literary  remains  of  the  apostolic  and  sub-apostolic  period.  Among 
the  most  ancient  are  the  Apostles'  Creed,  and  the  « Doctrine  of  the 
Twelve  Apostles»  discovered  in  1883;  both  owe  their  origin  to  the 
practical  needs  of  the  primitive  Christian  communities.  There  are, 
moreover,  some  Letters,  at  once  the  outcome  of  the  pastoral  zeal  of 
the  ecclesiastical  authorities  and  echoes  of  the  apostolic  Epistles. 

The  authors  of  these  Letters,  and  a  few  other  ecclesiastical  writers 
of  the  second  century,  are  usually  known  as  the  Apostolic  Fathers. 
J.  B.  Cotelier  (f  1686)  was  the  first  to  give  the  title  of  «Patres 
aevi  apostolici»  to  the  .author  of  the  so-called  Epistle  of  Barnabas, 
Clement  of  Rome,  Hermas,  Ignatius  of  Antioch,  and  Polycarp.  Later 
on  Papias  of  Hierapolis  and  the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  Diognetus 
were  included  in  the  series.  There  is  really  no  intimate  relationship 
between  these  writings.  The  work  of  Hermas  is  an  exhortation  to 
penance  in  the  shape  of  a  vision.  Of  the  work  of  Papias  only  meagre 
fragments  have  reached  us,  quite  useless  for  any  clear  intelligence 
of  its  original  form;  while  the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  Diognetus,  in 
view  of  its  tendency  and  form ,  more  properly  belongs  to  the 

Among  the  collective  editions  of  the  writings  ot  the  Apostolic  Fathers 
the  following  are  the  most  important.  Patres  aevi  apostolici  sive  SS.  Patrum, 


qui  temporibus  apostolicis  floruerunt,  Barnabae,  dementis  Rom.,  Hermae, 
Ignatii ,  Polycarpi ,  opera  edita  et  inedita ,  vera  et  supposititia ,  una  cum 
dementis,  Ignatii  et  Polycarpi  actis  atque  martyriis.  Ex  mss.  codicibus 
eruit,  correxit  versionibusque  et  notis  illustravit  J.  B.  Cotelerius,  Paris.,  1672, 
2  vol.  A  new  edition  was  issued  by  J.  Clericus ,  Antwerp,  1698,  and 
Amsterdam,  1724,  and  was  reprinted,  with  the  fragments  ofPapias  and  the 
Epistle  to  Diognetus  added,  in  Gallandi,  Bibl.  vet.  Patr.,  i  —  m,  Venetiis, 
1765 — 1767;  also  in  Migne,  PG.  i.  n  v,  Paris.,  1857.  -  -  Opera  Patrum 
apostolicorum  ed.  C.  J.  Hefele,  Tubingen,  1839,  4.  ed.  1855.  Opp.  Patr. 
apostol. ,  textum  recensuit ,  adnotationibus  criticis,  exegeticis,  historicis  il 
lustravit,  versionem  latinam,  prolegomena,  indices  addidit  P.  X.  Funk.  Ed. 
post  Hefelianam  quartam  quinta.  Vol.  i :  Epistulae  Barnabae ,  dementis 
Romani,  Ignatii,  Polycarpi,  Anonymi  ad  Diognetum,  Ignatii  et  Polycarpi 
martyria,  Pastor  Hermae,  Tubingen,  1878;  ed.  nova  Doctrina  duodecim 
Apostolorum  adaucta.  1887.  Vol.  ii:  dementis  R.  epistulae  de  virginitate 
eiusdemque  martyrium,  epistulae  Pseudo-Ignatii,  Ignatii  martyria  tria  .  .  ., 
Papiae  et  seniorum  apud  Irenaeum  fragmenta,  Polycarpi  vita,  1881.  A 
second  edition  ®i  Funk's  work  appeared  at  Tubingen  1901,  2  voll.  (Patres 
Apostolici,  i:  Doctrina  duodecim  Apostolorum,  Epistulae  Barnabae,  de 
mentis  Romani,  Ignatii,  Polycarpi  huiusque  martyrium,  Papiae,  Quadrati, 
presbyterorum  apud  Irenaeum  fragmenta,  Epistola  ad  Diognetum,  Pastor 
Hermae ;  ii :  dementis  Romani  epistulae  de  virginitate  eiusdemque  mar 
tyrium,  Epistulae  Pseudo-Ignatii,  Ignatii  martyria,  fragmenta  Polycarpiana, 
Polycarpi  vita).  F.  X.  Funk,  Die  apostolischen  Vater  (Sammlung  aus- 
gewahlter  kirchen-  und  dogmengeschichtl.  Quellenschriften ,  ed.  Krilger, 
2.  series  I),  Tubingen,  1901.  —  Patrum  apostolicorum  opera  ed.  A.  R.  M. 
Dressel,  Lipsiae,  1857,  2.  ed.  1863.  — •  Patrum  apostol.  opera,  textum  recen- 
suerunt,  commentario  exeg.  et  histor.  illustraverunt ,  apparatu  critico,  ver- 
sione  lat,  prolegg. ,  indicibus  instruxerunt  O.  de  Gebhardt ,  Ad.  Harnack, 
Th.  Zahn,  ed.  post  Dresselianam  alteram  tertia.  Ease,  i :  Barnabae  epist. 
Graece  et  Lat.,  dementis  R.  epp.  recens.  atque  illustr.,  Papiae  quae  stiper- 
sunt,  Presbyterorum  reliquias  ab  Irenaeo  servatas,  vetus  Ecclesiae  Rom. 
symbolum,  ep.  ad  Diognetum  adiecerunt  O.  de  Gebhardt  et  Ad.  Harnack, 
Lipsiae,  1875.  Fasc.  i,  part,  i,  2.  ed. :  dementis  R.  epp.,  textum  ad  fidem 
codicum  et  Alexandrini  et  Constantinopolitani  nuper  inventi  rec.  et  ill. 
O.  de  Gebhardt  et  Ad.  Harnack,  1876.  Fasc.  i,  part,  ii,  2.  ed. :  Barnabae 
epist.,  Papiae  quae  supersunt  etc.  adiec.  O.  de  Gebhardt  et  Ad.  Harnack, 
1878.  Fasc.  II:  Ignatii  et  Polycarpi  epistulae,  martyria,  fragmenta  rec.  et 
ill.  Th.  Zahn,  1876.  Fasc.  iii:  Hermae  Pastor  graece,  addita  versione 
latina  recentiore  e  cod.  Palatino,  rec.  et  ill.  O.  de  Gebhardt  et  Ad.  Harnack, 
1877  (Patrum  apostol.  opp.  rec.  O.  de  Gebhardt,  Ad.  Harnack  et  Th.  Zahn, 
ed.  minor,  Lipsiae,  1877,  1894,  1900,  1902).  —  Novum  Testamentum  extra 
canonem  receptum  (I.  Clemens  R.,  II.  Barnabas,  III.  Hermas.  IV.  Evangelio- 
rum  sec.  Hebraeos,  sec.  Petrum,  sec.  Aegyptios,  Matthiae  traditionum,  Petri 
et  Pauli  praedicationis  et  actuum,  Petri  Apocalypseos  etc.  quae  supersunt), 
ed.  Ad.  Hilgenfeld,  Lipsiae,  1866,  2.  ed.  1876—1884.  --  S.  Clement  of 
Rome.  The  two  Epistles  to  the  Corinthians.  A  revised  text  with  intro 
duction  and  notes.  By  J.  B.  Lightfoot,  Cambridge,  1869.  S.  Clement  of 
Rome.  An  Appendix  containing  the  newly  recovered  portions.  With  intro 
ductions,  notes  and  translations.  By  J.  B.  Lightfoot,  London,  1877.  The 
Apostolic  Fathers.  Part  ii:  St.  Ignatius,  St.  Polycarp.  Revised  texts  with 
introductions,  notes,  dissertations  and  translations.  By  J.  B.  Lightfoot, 
London,  1885,  3  voll.,  2.  ed.  1889.  The  Apostolic  Fathers.  Part,  i:  St.  Cle 
ment  of  Rome.  A  revised  text  with  introductions,  notes,  dissertations  and 
translations  By  the  late  J.  B.  Lightfoot,  London,  1890,  2  voll.  (The 


Apostolic  Fathers,  text  and  translation,  by  Lightfoot  and  Harmer,  i  vol., 
London,  1890.) 

German  translations  of  the  Apostolic  Fathers  were  made  by  Fr.  X. 
Karker,  Breslau,  1847  \  H.  Scholz,  Glitersloh,  1865  ;  J.  Chr.  Mayer,  Kempten, 
1869,  with  supplement  containing  the  newly  discovered  fragments  of  the 
so-called  Two  Epistles  to  the  Corinthians,  Kempten  1880  (Bibliothek  der 
Kirchenvater).  The  Apostolic  Fathers  were  translated  into  English  by 
J.  Donaldson  (The  Ante-Nicene  Christian  Library,  vol.  i,  Edinburgh, 
1866);  Ch.  H.  Hook,  London,  1872;  Dr.  Burton,  ib.  1888—1889. 

Among  the  writers  on  the  Apostolic  Fathers  are :  Ad.  Hilgenfdd,  Die 
Apostolischen  Vater,  Untersuchungen  liber  Inhalt  tmd  Ursprung  der  unter 
ihrem  Namen  erhaltenen  Schriften,  Halle  1853.  Ch.  E.  Freppel ,  Les 
Peres  apostoliques  et  leur  epoque,  Paris  1859.  4.  ed.  1885.  J.  Donaldson, 
A  Critical  History  of  Christian  Literature  and  Doctrine  from  the  death 
of  the  Apostles  to  the  Nicene  Council.  Vol.  i:  The  Apostolical  Fathers, 
London,  1864,  2.  ed.  1874.  C.  Skworzow,  Patrologische  Untersuchungen. 
Uber  Ursprung  der  problematischen  Schriften  der  Apostolischen  Vater,  Leipzig, 
1875.  J.  Sprinzl,  Die  Theologie  der  Apostolischen  Vater,  Wien,  1880. 

§  5.    The  Apostles'  Creed  (Symbolum  Apostolicum). 

1.  THE  TEXT.    According  to  an  ancient   tradition1  the  Apostles' 
Creed,    i.  e.  the  baptismal  profession  of  faith  of  the  Roman  liturgy, 
is  of  apostolic  origin,  not  only  in  contents,  but  textually.    The  subject 
of  this  tradition  is  not,  however,  the  Creed  in  its  present  form,  but 
in  a  much  older  one,  whereof  the  text,  both  in  Greek  and  Latin,  can 
be  reconstructed  with  almost  absolute  certainty.    The  oldest  authority 
for   the  Greek   text   is   a   letter  of  Marcellus,    bishop  of  Ancyra,    to 
Pope  Julius   I.,    written   in    337    or    338 2.     The    Latin    text    is    first 
met    with    in    the   commentary  on    the  Creed  written    by  Rufinus   of 
Aquileia  (f  410).    The  Latin  text  is  certainly  a  translation  from  the 
Greek.     The    extant   text   of  the    Creed    differs   from    these   ancient 
texts    chiefly    by    reason    of    a    few    not    very    important    additions 
(descendit    ad    infer  os,    sanctorum    communionem,    vitam    aeternam). 
The  circumstances  under  which    the  present    text  came  into  use  are 
shrouded  in  obscurity;   it  is  first  met  with   in  Southern  Gaul   about 
the  middle  of  the  fifth  century. 

2.  ITS  ANTIQUITY.     Caspari  has  demonstrated,  by  profound  and 
extensive   researches,    that   the   ancient   baptismal    creed    of  the  Ro 
man    Church    is    the    common    basis    and    root    of   all    the    primitive 
baptismal  creeds  of  the  West.     Following    in  his  footsteps,    Katten- 
busch    holds    that    the  Roman  creed    was    also    the   archetype  of  all 
Eastern  creeds  or  symbols  of  faith.    Tertullian  expressly  asserts  that 
the  African  Church  received    its  baptismal  creed    from  Rome 3.     He 
outlines  frequently  what  he  calls  a  Rule  of  Faith  4,  i.  e.  a  sketch  of  the 

1  Tradunt  maiores  nostri,  Rufinus,  Comm.  in  Symb.  apost.,  c.   2. 

2  Epiph.,   Haeres.   72,   2 — 3.  3  De  praescr.   haeret.,   c.   36. 

4  Regula  fidei,    lex  fidei,    regnla.      Cf.  De  praescr.   haeret.,   c.    13;    De  virgin,  vel. 
c.    i  ;  Adv.   Prax.,   c.   2. 


1 8  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

universally  taught  ecclesiastical  belief;  it  is  simply  a  paraphrase  of 
the  Old-Roman  baptismal  creed.  It  was  a  baptismal  creed  that  served 
Irenseus  as  a  criterion  in  his  description  of  «the  faith,  that  the  Church 
scattered  through  the  whole  world  had  received  from  the  Apostles 
and  their  disciples» 1.  If  the  creed  he  describes  be  not  that  of  the 
Roman  Church,  it  is  surely  one  that  resembled  it  very  much.  The 
writings  of  St.  Justin  show  that  in  the  first  half  of  the  second  century 
the  Roman  Church  possessed  a  fixed  and  definite  baptismal  creed2. 
We  possess  no  historical  authorities  older  than  those  mentioned. 

3.  APOSTOLIC  ORIGIN  OF  THE  CREED.     It  is  certain  that  the  con 
tents  of  the  Old-Roman  Creed  are  apostolic,  i.  e.  it  reproduces  in  an 
exact  and  reliable  way  the  teaching  of  the  Apostles.    From  what  has 
been  said  in  the  preceding  paragraph  it  will  be  seen   that   it  is  not 
possible  to  demonstrate  the  traditional  belief  in    the  apostolic  origin 
of  its  phraseology;    on    the    other   hand    it   is   still    more   difficult  to 
overthrow    the    same.      All    objections    to    the    contrary    repose    on 
untenable   historico-dogmatic    hypotheses.     It  is    certain,    on  the  one 
hand,    that  from    the  earliest  days  of  the  Church  the   need  of  some 
kind  of  a  profession  of  Christian  faith  before  the  reception  of  baptism 
was   felt;    the    convert    must  in   some   way   express   his    faith  in  the 
fundamental  facts  and  doctrines  of  Christianity 3.     On  the  other  hand, 
it  must   be    admitted,    with  Caspari,    that  the   ancient  Roman  Creed 
«with  its  primitive  seventy,  its  extreme  simplicity  and  brevity,  its  highly 
lapidary  style,  impresses  us  as  a  document  that  has  come  down,  word 
for  word,  from  the  most  remote  Christian  antiquity ». 

4.  LITERATURE.   The  traditional  forms  or  recensions  of  the  Apostles' 
Creed  are  collected  in 

H.  Denzinger,  Enchiridion  symbolorum  et  definitionum ,  9.  ed.,  aucta 
et  emendata  ab  J.  Stahl,  Freiburg,  1900,  pp.  i — 8;  with  greater  fulness  in 
A.  Plahn,  Bibliothek  der  Symbole  und  Glaubensregeln  der  alten  Kirche, 
3.  ed.  by  G.  L.  Ha/in,  Breslau,  1897,  pp.  22  f.  All  modern  investigations 
of  the  ancient  baptismal  creed  of  the  Church  date  from  the  fundamental 
labours  of  Caspari  (f  1892):  C.  P.  Caspari,  Ungedruckte,  unbeachtete  und 
wenig  beachtete  Quellen  zur  Geschichte  des  Taufsymbols  und  der  Glau- 
bensregel,  Christiania,  1866 — 1875,  3  v°ls-  Id->  Alte  und  neue  Quellen  zur 
Geschichte  des  Taufsymbols  und  der  Glaubensregel,  ib.  1879. 

Kattenbusch  availed  himself  of  the  scholarly  work  of  Caspari:  F.  Katten- 
busch,  Das  Apostolische  Symbol,  seine  Entstehung,  sein  geschichtlicher  Sinn, 
seine  urspriingliche  Stellung  im  Kulttis  und  in  der  Theologie  der  Kirche. 
Vol.  i:  Die  Grundgestalt  des  Taufsymbols,  Leipzig,  1894.  Vol.  ii:  Verbreitung 
und  Bedeutung  des  Taufsymbols,  1897—1900.  Cf.  also  M.  Nicolas,  Le 
symbole  des  Apotres.  Essai  histor.  Paris,  1867.  C.  A.  Heurtley ,  A  His 
tory  of  the  Earlier  Formularies  of  Faith  of  the  Western  and  Eastern 
Churches,  London,  1892.  We  can  cite  but  a  few  of  the  writings  called  forth 
in  Germany  since  1892  by  the  «Kampf  um  das  Apostolikum»  ,  a  conflict 
that  centred  rather  about  the  contents  than  about  the  text  of  the  Creed. 

1  Adv.   haer.,   i.    10,    n  ;   cf.   iii.   4,    i — 2;   iv.   33,   7. 

2  Apol.,  i.  61.  *  Acts  viii.  37;   cf.  Mk.  xvi.    16. 

§    6.     THE    DIDACHE    OR    TEACHING    OF   THE    TWELVE    APOSTLES.  19 

The  chief  opponent  of  the  «Apostolikum»  was  A.  Harnack ,  Das 
Apostolische  Glaubensbekenntnis,  Berlin,  1892,  25.  ed.  1894.  Among  its 
Protestant  defenders  Th.  Zahn ,  Das  Apostolische  Symbolum,  Erlangen, 
1893,  2.  ed.,  was  easily  prominent.  Catholic  scholarship  was  represented  by 
xS.  Bdumer,  Das  Apostolische  Glaubensbekenntnis,  Mainz,  1893,  and  C.  Blume, 
Das  Apostolische  Glaubensbekenntnis,  Freiburg,  1893.  Cf.  B.  Dor  holt,  Das 
Taufsymbolum  der  alten  Kirche  nach  Ursprung  imd  Entwicklung.  Parti: 
Geschichte  der  Symbolforschung,  Paderborn,  1898.  Cf.  also  J.  Kunze, 
Glaubensregel,  Heilige  Schrift  und  Taufbekenntnis,  Leipzig,  1899.  Other 
writers  on  the  Apostles'  Creed  are  O.  Scheel  in  Getting.  Gelehrten  Anzeigen, 
1901,  clxii.  835 — 864,  913  —  948;  A,  A,  Hopkins,  The  Apostles'  Creed, 
a  Discussion,  New  York,  1900.  We  may  also  note  the  discussion  between 
Dom  Fr.  Chamand  and  A.  Vacandard  in  the  Revue  des  questions  histo- 
riques,  for  1901.  W.  Sanday ,  Further  Research  on  the  History  of  the 
Creed,  in  Journal  of  Theol.  Studies  (1901),  iii.  i — 21.  G.  Semeria,  II  Credo 
in  Studi  Religiosi  1902,  ii.  i — 21,  and  in  Dogma,  Gerarchia  e  Culto 
nella  Chiesa  primitiva,  Rome,  1902,  315 — 336;  G.  Voisin,  L'origine  du 
Symbole  des  Apotres,  in  Revue  d'hist.  eccles.,  1902,  iii.  297- — 323;  A.  C. 
McGiffert,  The  Apostles'  Creed,  its  Origin,  its  Purpose  and  its  Historical 
Interpretation,  London,  1902;  W.  W.  Bishop,  The  Eastern  Creeds  and  the 
Old  Roman  Symbol  in  American  Journal  of  Theology,  1902,  518—528; 
A,  G.  Mortimer,  The  Creeds,  an  Historical  and  Doctrinal  Exposition  of 
the  Apostles',  Nicene,  and  Athanasian  Creeds,  London,  1902 ;  A.  Cusham, 
The  Apostles'  Creed,  its  Origin,  its  Purpose,  and  its  Historical  Inter 
pretation,  Edinburg,  1903  ;  V.  Ennoni,  Histoire  du  Credo,  le  Symbole  des 
Apotres,  Paris,  1903 ;  D.  F.  Weigand,  Das  Apostolische  Symbol  im  Mittel- 
alter,  eine  Skizze,  Gieften,  1904.  Burn,  The  Textus  Receptus  of  the 
Apostles'  Creed,  in  Journal  of  Theol.  Studies  (1902),  iii.  481 — 500. 

§  6.     The  Didache  or  Teaching  of  the  Twelve  Apostles. 

I .  ITS  CONTENTS.  This  is  the  title  of  one  of  the  oldest  documents 
of  Christian  antiquity,  discovered  in  1883  by  Philotheos  Bryennios. 
In  the  only  manuscript  yet  known,  written  in  1056,  the  little  work 
is  called  Awayy  xvpiou  dta  TOJV  dcbdsxa  dnoffroAwy  TO"IQ  e&vsffiv,  while 
in  the  table  of  contents  it  is  simply  Aida'/y  TWV  ocofexa  diroaToXatv. 
The  former  is  not  only  an  older  title  than  the  latter,  but  is  most 
probably  the  original.  By  it  the  anonymous  author  meant  to  suggest 
a  compendious  presentation  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus  Christ  as 
preached  to  the  gentiles  by  the  Apostles.  In  length  it  about 
equals  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  and  is  divided  into  two  parts. 
The  first  (cc.  I  — 10)  contains  an  ecclesiastical  ritual.  In  it  are  found 
instruction  in  Christian  ethics  (cc.  I— 6),  in  the  shape  of  the  descrip 
tion  of  the  Two  Ways,  the  Way  of  Life  (cc.  I — 4)  and  the  Way  of 
Death  (c.  5)-  This  is  expressly  set  forth  as  a  guide  for  the  instruc 
tion  of  those  who  seek  baptism  (c.  7,  i).  The  author  then  treats  of 
baptism  (c.  7),  of  fasting  and  prayer  (c.  8),  and  of  the  Blessed  Eu 
charist  (cc.  9 — 10).  These  liturgical  precepts  are  completed  in  the 
second  part  by  instruction  concerning  the  mutual  relations  of  the 
Christian  communities  (the  scrutiny  of  wandering  Christian  teachers, 
Aot  xai  npopyTat,  c.  1 1,  the  reception  of  travelling  brethren  c.  13, 

2  * 


the  support  of  prophets  and  teachers  who  settle  in  the  community, 
c.  13),  the  religious  life  of  each  community,  e.  g.  divine  service  on 
Sundays  (c.  14),  and  the  superiors  of  the  communities,  iTricrxoTrot,  xal 
dtdxovot  (c.  15,  i  —  2).  The  work  closes  with  a  warning  to  be 
vigilant,  for  the  last  day  is  at  hand. 

2.  TIME  AND  PLACE  OF  COMPOSITION.    It  was  probably  composed 
in  the  last  decades  of  the  first  century,  most  likely  in  Syria  or  Palestine. 
It  is  undoubtedly   of  the  highest  antiquity;    one  meets  no  longer  in 
the  second  Christian  century   with  such  conditions   as   are  taken  for 
granted  in  its  references  to  the  rite  of  baptism  (c.  7),  of  the  Blessed 
Eucharist  (cc.  9  —  10),  the  ministers  of  the  divine  mysteries  (exiaxoxot 
xai  dtdxovot,  c.  15,  i),  and  the  ministers  of  the  divine  word  (dnooTokoi 
xai  7Tf>o(p'7jTat,    c.    11,   3).     The   description   of  the  Ways  of  Life  and 
Death   is   so   strikingly   similar   to    that    of  the  Ways    of  Light   and 
Darkness  in  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas  (cc.  18  —  20),  itself  probably  com 
posed  at  the  end  of  the  first  century,  that  one  of  these  two  authors 
must  have  copied  from  the  other,  or  both  must  have  used  a  common 
original.    Apart  from  this  latter  hypothesis,  Funk,  Zahn,  and  SchaiT 
have  shown,  as  against  Bryennios,  Harnack,  Volkmar  and  others,  that 
in  all  probability  it  is  not  the  Didache  which  is  dependent  on  the  Epistle 
to    Barnabas,    but    the    contrary.      An    older    model    is    not    to    be 
postulated.    Especially,  is  there  no  good  reason  for  subscribing  to  the 
hypothesis  of  Harnack,  Taylor,  Savi  and  others,  that  the  basis  of  the 
first  chapters   of  the  Didache   is   a  Jewish  work,    some   ancient  cate 
chism  for   proselytes.     On   the    one   hand,    the    existence    of  such   a 
work   is  purely  hypothetical,  and  on  the  other,  the  first  chapters  of 
the  Didache  exhibit   a  specific  Christian  character   by  reason  of  the 
many  phrases,  turns  of  thought  and  reminiscences  that  they  borrow 
from  the  New  Testament.     Nor  is  there  any  sufficient  reason  to  adopt 
the   hypothesis   of  a   still    older  Christian   Didache  (Urdidache)    that 
was  improved  and  enlarged  in  the  work  before  us.     With  some  ex 
ceptions  (cc.    i,   3  —  2,    i)  the  extant   manuscript   of  the  Didache  re 
presents,  quite  probably,  its  original  form. 

3.  ITS  HISTORY.    In  some  of  the  churches  of  the  East,  particularly 
those  of  Egypt,   Syria,  and  Palestine,  the  Didache  was    once    highly 
esteemed.     Clement  of  Alexandria  cites  it  as  «Scripture»  *;  Athanasius 
places  it  among  writings  suitable  for  catechumens  alongside  with  some 
books  of  the  Old  Testament  2  ;  Eusebius  places  it  among  the  apocrypha 
of  the  New  Testament,  i.  e.  among  those  books  that  had  wrongly  been 
placed   by   some   in   the    canon3.     The   so-called  Apostolic   Church- 
Ordinance,  composed  probably  toward  the  end  of  the  third  century 
in  Egypt,  contains  (cc.  4  —  14)  a  description  of  the  Two  Ways,  or  rather 

eiprtrat\  Strom.,  i.   20,    100. 
xaAoL>/j.£>-q  ttbv  dnoffToAwv:   Ep.  festal,   39. 

al  Asyofisvat.  dida/ai:  Hist,  eccl.,   iii.   25,   4. 

§    6.      THE    DIDACHE    OR    TEACHING    OF    THE    TWELVE    APOSTLES.  2 1 

of  the  Way  of  Life,  in  which  it  is  easy  to  recognize  a  slight  paraphrase 
of  the  first  four  chapters  of  the  Didache.  Similarly,  a  more  exten 
sive  overworking  of  the  entire  Didache  is  met  with  in  the  first  part 
of  the  seventh  book  of  the  Apostolic  Constitutions  (cc.  I — 32),  a 
work  that  was  very  probably  compiled  about  the  beginning  of  the 
fifth  century  in  Syria.  Among  the  Latins  the  work  is  first  met  with 
in  the  pseudo-Cyprianic  homily  «Adversus  aleatores»  1.  There  is  still 
extant  an  ancient  Latin  version  of  the  first  six  chapters. 

The  editio  princeps  of  the  Didache  is  entitled :  AIOGT/Y]  TWV  owSexa  a~o- 

OToXtoV  ,      EX    TOU     tSpOJOAUpUTT/.OU      yfclpoypacpoi)     VUV    7:pU>TOV     £7.6l8o}Jl£VY]      [ASTO,     TpO- 

\z^rj\Livu>v  xai  urjpLstojJSwv  .  .  .  UTTG  dHAoftsou  Bpusvviou  }JiYjTpoTcoXiTou  Ntxo|jirj6£ia£. 
'Ev  KtovstavTivouTioXst,  1883  (cxlix.  75  pp.).  The  « Codex  Hierosolymitanus»  is 
a  parchment  manuscript,  written  in  1056,  probably  in  Palestine.  In  1883 
it  was  in  the  library  of  the  Hospice  of  the  Holy  Sepulchre  Church  at 
Constantinople,  whence  it  was  soon  transferred  to  the  library  of  the  Greek 
Patriarchate  at  Jerusalem.  Those  pages  of  the  manuscript  that  contained 
the  Didache  were  photographed  by  y.  Rendel  Harris  for  his  edition  of 
the  text:  The  Teaching  of  the  Twelve  Apostles,  Baltimore  and  London, 
1887.  A  lively  interest  was  at  once  aroused,  especially  in  England  and 
America,  with  the  result  that  a  rich  and  varied  literature  has  grown 
up  about  this  work.  Cf.  F.  X.  Funk,  Doctrina  duodecim  apostolorum, 
Tubingen,  1887,  pp.  xlvi — lii,  for  the  literature  previous  to  that  year2;  a 
lengthier  list  is  found  in  Ph.  Schaff,  The  Teaching  of  the  Twelve  Apostles, 
3.  ed.,  New  York,  1889,  pp.  140 — 158,  297—320.  Among  the  many  edi 
tions  of  the  Didache  those  of  Bryennios,  Schaff,  Funk,  and  Rendel  Harris 
are  especially  meritorious  by  reason  of  their  wealth  of  information.  See 
A.  Harnack,  Die  Lehre  der  zwolf  Apostel  (Texte  und  Untersuchungen  zur 
Geschichte  der  altchristlichen  Literatur  ii.  i — 2),  Leipzig,  1884,  stereotyped 
1893.  All  these  editions  contain,  beside  the  text  of  the  Didache,  older 
adaptations  of  the  Doctrine  of  the  Two  Ways,  especially  the  Apostolic 
Church-Ordinance  (entire  or  in  part)  and  the  first  part  of  the  seventh  book 
of  the  Apostolic  Constitutions.  An  Arabic  adaptation  of  t|he  first  six  chapters 
of  the  Didache,  taken  from  a  Coptic  source,  was  discovered  and  published 
by  Z.  E.  Iselin  and  A.  Heusler,  Eine  bisher  unbekannte  Version  des  ersten 
Teiles  der  Apostellehre  (Texte  und  Untersuchungen  xiii.  i),  Leipzig,  1895. 
Harnack  followed  up  his  larger  edition  with  a  smaller  one,  in  which  he 
undertook  to  reproduce  the  supposed  Jewish  prototype  of  the  Didache: 
Die  Apostellehre  und  die  jiidischen  beiden  Wege,  Leipzig,  1886,  2.  ed. 
1896.  Contemporaneously  with  his  edition  of  the  Didache,  Funk  brought 
out  a  new  edition  of  the  first  volume  of  his  « Opera  Patrum  apostolico- 
rum»  and  included  in  it  the  newly-found  text  « Didache,  sen  Doctrina  xii 
Apostolorum».  In  a  Munich  manuscript  of  the  eleventh  century  J.  Schlecht 
found  an  old  Latin  version  of  the  first  six  chapters  of  the  Didache;  a 
short  fragment  of  the  same  (Did.  i ,  i — 3 ;  2,  2 — 6)  had  already  been 
edited  by  B.  Pez  in  1723  from  a  Melk  codex  of  the  ninth  or  tenth  cen 
tury.  Schlecht ,  Die  Lehre  der  zwolf  Apostel  in  der  Liturgie  der  katho- 
lischen  Kirche,  Freiburg,  1900;  Id.,  Doctrina  XII  apostolorum,  Freiburg, 
1900.  The  literature  of  the  subject  is  very  copious;  it  may  suffice  to  indi 
cate  several  essays  of  Funk,  written  1884—1897  on  the  date  of  the  origin 
of  the  Didache  and  on  its  relations  to  similar  texts ;  they  may  be  found 

1  In   doctrinis  apostolorum,   c.   4. 

2  This  list  has  been  brought -up  to  date  in  his  new  edition,  Tubingen,    1901. 


in  his  Kirchengeschichtliche  Abhandlungen,  Paderborn,  1899,  ii.  108 — 141 ; 
cf.  Th.  Zahn,  Forschungen  zur  Geschichte  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons  und 
der  altkirchl.  Literatur,  Erlangen  and  Leipzig,  1884,  iii.  278 — 319.  A.  Kra- 
wiitzcky,  Uber  die  sogen.  Zwolfapostellehre,  ihre  hauptsachlichsten  Quellen 
und  ihre  erste  Aufnahme,  in  Theol.  Qnartalschrift  (1884),  Ixvi.  547 — 606. 
K.  Miinchen,  Die  Lehre  der  zwolf  Apostel,  eine  Schrift  des  i.  jahrhun- 
derts,  in  Zeitschrift  fiir  kath.  Theologie  (1886),  x.  629-676.  C.  Taylor, 
The  Teaching  of  the  Twelve  Apostles,  with  Illustrations  from  the  Talmud, 
Cambridge,  1886.  Id. ,  An  Essay  on  the  Theology  of  the  Didache,  ib. 
1889.  G.  Wohlenberg ,  Die  Lehre  der  zwolf  Apostel  in  ihrem  Verhaltnis 
zum  neutestamentlichen  Schrifttum,  Erlangen,  1888.  J.  M.  Minasi ,  La 
dottrina  del  Signore  pei  Dodici  Apostoli  bandita  alle  genti  (translation, 
notes  and  commentary),  Rome,  1891.  P.  Savi,  La  «Dottrina  degli  Apo 
stoli »,  ricerche  critiche  sull'  origine  del  testo  con  una  nota  intorno  al'  eu- 
caristia,  Roma,  1893,  reprinted  in  «Litteratura  cristiana  antica».  C.  H. 
Hoole,  The  Didache,  London,  1894.  Studi  critici  del  P.  Paolo  Savi  barna- 
bita  raccolti  e  riordinati  dal  can.  Fr.  Bolese,  Siena,  1899,  47 — 119.  Osser- 
vazioni  sulla  Didache  degli  Apostoli  in  Bessarione  vol.  ii  (1897 — 1898), 
12 — 17  vol.  iii.  U.  Benigni ,  Didache  coptica  «duarum  viarum»  recensio 
coptica  monastica  per  arabicam  versionem  superstes,  ib.  vol.  iii  (1898  and 
1899);  iv.  311 — 329  (also  in  separate  reprint).  E.  Hennecke,  Die  Grund- 
schrift  der  Didache  und  ihre  Rezensionen,  in  Zeitschrift  fur  die  neutesta- 
mentliche  Wissenschaft  (1901),  ii.  58 — 72.  F.  X.  Funk,  Zur  Didache,  die 
Frage  nach  der  Grundschrift  und  ihren  Rezensionen,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr. 
(1902),  Ixxxiv,  73 — 88-,  cf.  R.  Mariano,  La  dottrina  dei  Dodici  Apostoli 
e  la  critica  storica  in  «I1  Cristianesimo  nei  primi  secoli»  (Scritti  vari,  iv), 
Florence,  1902,  357 — 394.  Liidwig ,  Zur  Lehre  vom  Kirchenamte  in  der 
Didache,  in  Hist.-polit.  Blatter  (1901),  cxxviii.  732—739.  P.  Ladeuze, 
L'Eucharistie  et  les  repas  communs  des  fideles  dans  la  Didache,  in 
Revue  de  1'Orient  chretien  (1902),  vii.  341 — 359.  W.  Scherer ,  Der 
Weinstock  Davids  (Did.  9,  2)  im  Lichte  der  Schrifterklarung  betrachtet, 
in  Katholik  (1903),  i.  357 — 365.  B.  Labanca,  La  dottrina  degli  Apostoli 
studiata  in  Italia,  Roma,  1895,  in  Rivista  italiana  di  nlosofia  x,  1895.  Th. 
Schermann ,  Eine  Elfapostelmoral  oder  die  X-Rezension  der  beiden 
Wege,  Munich,  1902  (Veroffentlichungen  aus  dem  kirchenhistor.  Seminar 
ii.  2).  P.  Batiffol,  L'Eucharistie  dans  la.  Didache,  in  Revue  biblique 
(1905),  pp.  58 — 67.  Bigg ,  Notes  on  the  Didache,  in  Journal  of  Theol. 
Studies  (July  1904),  v.  579 — 589.  J.  V.  Bartlet ,  (art.)  «Didache»  in 
Hastings'  Diet,  of  the  Bible  (extra  vol.)  (1904),  pp.  438 — 451. 

§  7.     The  so-called  Epistle  of  Barnabas. 

I .  ITS  CONTENTS.  The  Letter  current  under  the  name  of  St.  Bar 
nabas  gives  the  names  neither  of  the  author  nor  of  the  recipients; 
they  are  called  «sons  and  daughters»  (c.  I,  i)  or  «brothers»  (cc.  2,  10; 
3,  6,  and  passim}  or  « children »  (cc.  7,  I ;  9,  7).  Though  the  author 
of  the  Letter  had  preached  the  Gospel  among  those  to  whom  it  is 
addressed,  he  nowhere  indicates  their  dwelling-place.  Apart  from  the 
exordium  (c.  i)  and  the  conclusion  (c.  21)  the  Letter  is  divided  into 
two  parts  of  very  unequal  length  (cc.  2 — 17  and  18—20).  The  first 
part  of  the  Letter  undertakes  to  appreciate  properly  the  value  and 
the  meaning  of  the  Old  Testament.  The  author  is  not  satisfied 
with  the  teaching  of  the  New  Testament,  that  the  Old  has  been  an- 

§    7-      THE    SO-CALLED    EPISTLE    OF    BARNABAS.  23 

nulled  and  the  Mosaic  Law  abrogated.  He  goes  farther  and  asserts 
that  the  Old  Testament  was  never  valid,  that  Judaism  with  its  pre 
cepts  and  ceremonies  was  not  ordained  of  God,  but  was  a  work 
of  human  folly  and  diabolical  deceit.  Deceived  by  the  devil,  the 
Jews  had  understood  the  Law  in  the  literal  sense,  whereas  they 
should  have  interpreted  it,  not  according  to  the  letter  but  according 
to  the  spirit.  God  asked  not  for  external  sacrifices,  but  for  a  con 
trite  heart  (c.  2) ;  not  for  corporal  fasting,  but  for  good  works  (c.  3) ;  not 
for  circumcision  of  the  flesh,  but  for  that  of  the  ears  and  the  heart  (c.  9) ; 
not  for  abstinence  from  the  flesh  of  certain  animals,  but  from  the 
sins  that  are  represented  by  these  animals  (c.  10).  In  truth,  the 
Old  Testament  in  its  entirety  was  a  mysterious  foretelling  of  the  New 
Testament;  throughout  its  pages  are  everywhere  suggested  or  prefigured 
the  truths  of  Christian  revelation  or  facts  of  the  Gospel  history. 
Thus,  in  the  circumcision  of  the  three  hundred  and  eighteen  servants 
of  Abraham  (Gen.  xvii.  27;  cf.  xiv.  14)  there  is  a  mystical  allusion 
to  the  death  of  our  Lord  on  the  cross:  18  =  cy  =  Jesus,  and  300 
=  r  =  the  Cross  (c.  9).  In  the  eighteenth  chapter  the  author  passes 
to  « another  knowledge  and  doctrine ».  He  describes  minutely  two 
opposite  Ways,  the  Way  of  Light  (c.  19)  and  the  Way  of  Darkness 
(c.  20).  It  is  highly  probable,  as  has  been  already  observed  (§  6.  2), 
that  the  introduction  to  the  Didache  was  here  his  source  and  model. 
There  can  be  no  doubt  of  the  unity  and  homogeneity  of  the  Letter 
in  the  form  in  which  it  has  come  down  to  us :  the  hypotheses  of 
retouches  and  interpolations,  suggested  by  Heydecke  and  Weiss,  are 
without  foundation.  The  author's  literary  incapacity  is  evident,  a  fact 
that  explains  the  absence  of  connected  and  consecutive  thought. 

2.  ITS  NON- AUTHENTICITY.  With  one  voice  Christian  antiquity 
indicated  as  author  of  this  work  St.  Barnabas,  the  travelling  com 
panion  and  fellow-labourer  of  the  Apostle  Paul ;  he  is  himself  called  an 
Apostle  (Acts  xiv.  4,  14;  I  Cor.  ix.  5  f;  cf.  Gal.  ii.  9).  The  oldest 
writer  in  whom  are  found  express  citations  from  the  Letter  is  Clement 
of  Alexandria;  he  frequently  attributes  the  authorship  of  it  to  St.  Barna 
bas1.  This  was  also  the  belief  of  Origen2.  The  latter  even  calls  it 
a  xa$o/>ix~q  ImoroXfy  probably  because  even  then  it  bore  no  special 
address.  Both  of  these  Alexandrine  doctors  held  the  Letter  in 
very  great  veneration.  Eusebius  places  it  3  among  the  non-canonical 
writings,  the  vofta.  or  flyrdefofjisvat  fpa(po.i\  St.  Jerome  among  the  apo 
cryphal  writings  *.  Both,  however,  seem  firmly  persuaded  of  the  author 
ship  of  St.  Barnabas.  In  general,  throughout  the  patristic  literature 
there  is  no  expression  to  the  contrary.  But  modern  opinion  judges 
differently.  There  may  be  yet  an  occasional  defender  of  the  authorship 

1  Strom.,  ii.   6,   31  ;   7,   35.  2  Contra  Celsum,  i.   63. 

3  Hist,  eccl.,  iii.   25,  4;  vi.    13,  6. 

4  De  viris  illustr.,  c.   6  ;   Comm.   in  Ezech.   ad  43,    \<). 


of  St.  Barnabas,  but  the  great  majority  of  scholars  have  declared  the 
Letter  non-authentic.  A  very  decisive  argument  is  its  teaching  concerning 
the  Old  Testament;  it  is  quite  opposed  to  the  teaching  of  the  Apostles, 
especially  of  St.  Paul,  and  cannot  therefore  be  attributed  to  St.  Bar 
nabas.  Moreover,  the  indications  of  the  author  concerning  the  epoch 
in  which  he  lived  do  not  permit  us  to  believe  in  the  authenticity  of 
this  Letter.  It  is  sufficiently  certain  that  Barnabas  did  not  survive 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  (70),  a  date  that  for  the  author  of 
the  Letter  is  already  in  the  past  (c.  16).  It  is  also  an  undoubted 
fact  that  St.  Barnabas  was  no  longer  alive  in  the  time  of  the  Emperor 
Nerva,  when,  according  to  the  most  approved  conjectures,  the  Letter 
was  composed. 

3.    TIME  AND  PLACE  OF  COMPOSITION.    Two  passages  in  the  Letter 
are  relied  on  to  determine  with  some  precision  the  date  of  its  com 
position.    In  one  (c.  4)  the  author  maintains  the  proximity  of  the  end 
of  the  world.     This  will  come  about  in  the  time  of  an  eleventh  king 
who,  according  to  the  prophecy  of  Daniel  (vil.  8,   24)  has  humiliated 
three  of  the  ten  kings  who  preceded  him,  and  that,  adds  the  author 
of  the  Letter,  at  the  same  time  (utp   iV  c.  4.  4,  5).     It  seems  certain 
that  the  time  of  the  reign  of  this  eleventh  king  was  the  period  in  which 
the  Letter  was  composed.     But  who  is  this  eleventh  king?   According 
to  the  most  plausible   opinion    (Hilgenfeld,    Funk)  it  is  the  Emperor 
Nerva  (96—98).     His  three  predecessors  belong  to  the  same  family, 
and  in  and  with  Domitian  (the  last  representative  of  the  family  of  the 
Flavii)  all  three  in  a  certain  sense  may  be  said  to  have  been  dethroned. 
It  is  true  that,  counting  in  Augustus,  Nerva  is  not  the  eleventh  but 
the  twelfth  emperor;    we   may  admit,    however,    that  the  author  has 
torgotten   in    his  enumeration    one    of  the  three  ephemeral  emperors 
(Galba,  Otto,  or  Vitellius),  predecessors  of  Vespasian,  and  who  were 
not  all  recognized  in  every  part  of  the  empire.  The  second  passage  con 
cerning  the  Temple  (c.  16)  cannot  be  relied  on  for  chronological  pur 
poses.     The   words    «now   the    Temple   is   being    rebuilt »    (c.    16.  4) 
have    been    recently    interpreted     by    Harnack    of   the    building    of 
the   temple   of  Jupiter  Capitolinus   under   Hadrian    (about    130)    and 
on   the    site    of  the    Temple    of  Jerusalem.      It    is    highly   probable, 
however,    from    the    context,    that   the  author   is   speaking   not   of  a 
pagan  temple  of  stone,  but  of  a  spiritual  temple  in  the  hearts  of  the 
(nvevpaTtxbQ  vauo,  o!xodofjto6fjtevo£  rw  xopiw ,  c.    16.    10).     The 
place   of  composition   is   usually   understood   to 'be  Alexandria;    the 
allegorical  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures  to  which  the  author  is  very 
much  addicted  was  a  special  characteristic  of  that  city.     The  Letter's 
immediate   circle    of  readers   might  well    be   a  mixed  community  of 
Judaeo-Christians  and  Gentile  converts  in  the  vicinity  of  Alexandria. 

4.  MANUSCRIPTS  AND  EDITIONS.  The  «  Letter  of  Barnabas»  is  found  com 
plete  ID  two  manuscripts.  The  older  and  more  important  is  the  Greek  biblical 

§    8.      CLEMENT    OF    ROME.  25 

codex  of  the  fourth  century,  discovered  in  1859,  by  C.  Tischendorf,  and 
known  as  the  Codex  Sinaiticus.  It  contains,  as  an  appendix  to  the  biblical 
books,  the  Letter  of  Barnabas  and  a  part  of  the  Shepherd  of  Hermas. 
The  other  manuscript  is  the  Codex  Hierosolymitanus  of  the  year  1056,  dis 
covered  by  Ph.  Bryennios  (fol.  33r — 5iv).  There  are  also  several  manu 
scripts  of  this  Letter  that  come  down  from  a  single  archetype,  but  in 
which  are  lacking  the  first  four  chapters  and  half  of  the  fifth:  their  text 
begins  (c.  5.  7)  with  the  words  TOV  Xaov  TOV  xaivov.  An  additional  means  of 
controlling  the  text  of  the  Letter  is  found  in  an  old  Latin  version,  very  faulty 
however  and  incomplete,  preserved  in  a  St.  Petersburg  codex  of  the  ninth 
or  tenth  century;  it  contains  the  text  of  cc.  1  —  17.  The  Letter  was 
first  printed,  together  with  the  Letters  of  St.  Ignatius,  by  J.  Ussher,  the 
Anglican  archbishop  of  Armagh,  in  1642.  Cf.  J.  H.  Backhouse,  The  Editio 
Princeps  of  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas  by  Archbishop  Ussher,  Oxford,  1883. 
A  second  and  separate  edition  was  published  by  the  Maurist  Benedictine 
Hugo  Menard,  or  rather,  since  his  death  in  1644  prevented  his  issue 
of  the  work,  by  his  confrere  J.  L.  d'Achtry,  Paris,  1645.  A  third  edition 
that  included  the  Ignatian  Letters  and  was  based  on  a  wider  collation  of 
manuscripts,  was  prepared  by  the  Leyden  philologian  J.  Voss,  Amsterdam, 
1646,  2.  ed.  London,  1680.  Many  of  the  later  editions  are  indicated  (§  4) 
among  the  editions  of  the  Apostolic  Fathers:  J.  B.  Cotelier,  Paris,  1672; 
Antwerp,  1698;  Amsterdam  1724  (reprinted  in  Gallandi,  Bibl.  vet.  Patr. 
t.  i;  Migne,  PG.  ii.) ;  C.  J.  Hefele,  Tubingen  1839,  4-  ed-  l855;  A.M. 
Dressel,  Leipzig,  1857,  2.  ed.  1863;  A.  Hilgenfeld,  ib.  1866,  2.  ed.  1877. 
O.  von  Gebhardt  and  A.  Harnack,  ib.  1875,  2-  ed-  l878i  ^r-  X.  Funk, 
Tubingen,  1878,  1887,  1901.  —  Translations  of  and  works  on  the  Apostolic 
Fathers  are  mentioned  in  §  4.  Among  the  special  studies  on  the  Letter 
of  Barnabas  cf.  C.  J.  Hefele,  Das  Sendschreiben  des  Apostels  Barnabas, 
aufs  neue  untersucht,  iibersetzt  und  erklart,  Tubingen,  1840.  y.  Kayser, 
Uber  den  sog.  Barnabasbrief,  Paderborn,  1866.  J.  G.  Midler,  Erklarung 
des  Barnabasbriefes,  Leipzig,  1869.  Chr.  J.  Riggenbach,  Der  sogen.  Brief 
des  Barnabas,  Ubersetzung,  Bemerkungen,  Basel,  1873.  C.  Heydecke,  Disser- 
tatio  qua  Barnabae  Epistola  interpolata  demonstratur ,  Brunsvigi,  1874. 
O.  Braunsberger,  Der  Apostel  Barnabas.  Sein  Leben  und  der  ihm  beigelegte 
Brief,  wissenschaftlich  gewurdigt,  Mainz,  1876.  W.  Cunningham,  The  Epistle 
of  S.  Barnabas.  A  Dissertation  including  a  Discussion  of  its  date  and 
authorship,  London,  1877.  Two  dissertations  by  Funk,  on  the  date  of 
authorship  of  the  Epistle,  are  reprinted  in  his  Kirchengeschichtliche  Abhand- 
lungen  und  Untersuchungen  (1899),  ii.  77 — 108.  C.  Fr.  Arnold,  Quaestionum 
de  compositione  et  fontibus  Barnabae  epistolae  capita  nonnulla  (Dissert, 
inaug.),  Regiomonti,  1886.  J.  Weifl,  Der  Barnabasbrief,  kritisch  untersucht, 
Berlin,  1888.  A.  Harnack,  Geschichte  der  altchristlichen  Literatur  (1897), 
ii.  410 — 428.  A.  Ladeuze,  L'fipitre  de  Barnabe,  in  Revue  d'histoire  ecclesia- 
stique  (1900),  i.  31 — 40,  212  —  225.  On  the  formal  or  artistic  execution  of 
the  Epistle  cf.  T.  M.  Wehofer,  Untersuchungen  ziir  altchristlichen  Epistolo- 
graphie,  Vienna,  1901.  A.  van  VeldJwizen ,  De  Brief  van  Barnabas,  Gro- 
ningen,  1901.  A.  Di  Pauli,  Kritisches  zum  Barnabasbrief,  in  Histor.-polit. 
Blatter  (1902),  cxxxi  318—324.  J.  Tunnel,  La  lettre  de  Barnabe',  in 
Annales  de  philos.  chretienne,  1903,  juillet,  387 — 398. 

§  8.     Clement  of  Rome. 

I.  ins  LIFE.    According  to  St.  Irenseus1,  he  was  the  third  successor 
of  St.  Peter   in    the   Roman    See.     The   later   opinion  that   Clement 

1  Adv.  haer.,  iii.   3,   3. 


was  the  immediate  successor  of  St.  Peter  *  is  probably  derived  from  the 
so-called  Clementine  Literature  (§  26,  3)  and  certainly  is  unhistorical. 
Eusebius  himself  looked  on  Clement  as  the  fourth  pope,  and  reckoned 
his  pontificate  at  nine  years  (92- — 101),  from  the  twelfth  year  of 
Domitian  to  the  third  of  Trajan  2.  For  his  early  life  we  are  reduced 
to  conjecture.  The  Clementine  statement  that  he  belonged  to  the 
imperial  family  of  the  Flavii  deserves  no  credence.  Recent  writers 
have  wisely  abandoned  the  hypothesis,  closely  related  to  the  Cle 
mentine  view,  that  Clement  is  identical  with  the  consul  Titus  Flavius 
Clemens,  a  cousin  of  Domitian,  put  to  death  (95  or  96)  as  guilty 
of  atheism  and  Jewish  practices,  i.  e.  very  probably  as  a  Christian  3. 
The  general  impression  produced  by  his  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians 
seems  favourable  to  the  thesis  that  Clement  was  of  Jewish,  not 
Gentile,  parentage.  The  relatively  very  late  narratives  of  his  martyr 
dom  can  hardly  claim  to  be  more  than  poetry  and  saga.  Origen4 
and  Eusebius 5  identify  our  writer  with  that  Clement  whom  St.  Paul 
names  and  praises  as  one  of  his  « fellow-labourers »  6. 

The  «testimonia»  of  antiquity  concerning  Clement  are  discussed  at 
length  in  Lightfoot,  The  Apostolic  Fathers,  part  I,  London,  1890,  i.  14—103, 
104—115,  201 — 345.  For  his  place  in  the  catalogue  of  popes  see  Duchesne, 
Liber  Pontificalis,  I,  Paris,  1886,  Ixxi. — Ixxxiii,  and  for  the  consul  Titus 
Flavius  Clemens,  Fr.  X.  Funk,  Kirchengeschichtl.  Abhandlungen  und  Unter- 
suchungen,  Paderborn,  1897,  i.  308 — 329. 

2.  THE  LETTER  TO  THE  CORINTHIANS.  Clement  is  the  author 
of  a  long  Letter  to  the  Christian  community  at  Corinth,  that  has 
reached  us  in  the  Greek  original  and  in  a  Latin  and  a  Syriac  version. 
In  that  city  a  few  bold  and  presumptuous  men  (c.  i,  I,  cf.  47.  6) 
had  risen  against  their  ecclesiastical  superiors  and  driven  them  from 
their  offices;  Clement  desires  to  put  an  end  to  the  confusion.  In 
the  exordium  of  his  Letter  he  depicts  in  lively  colours  the  former 
flourishing  state  of  the  Church  of  Corinth ;  after  a  brief  notice  of  the 
very  deplorable  actual  condition  of  the  community,  he  goes  on  to 
the  first  part  of  the  Letter  (cc.  4 — 36).  It  contains  instruction  and 
exhortation  of  a  general  character,  warns  the  Corinthians  against 
envy  and  jealousy,  recommends  humility  and  obedience,  and  appeals 
continually  to  the  types  and  examples  of  these  virtues  offered  by 
the  Old  Testament.  The  second  part  (cc.  36 — 61)  deals  more 
directly  with  the  situation  at  Corinth.  He  treats  here  of  the  eccle 
siastical  hierarchy  and  exhibits  the  necessity  of  subjection  to  the 
legitimate  ecclesiastical  authorities.  In  conclusion  (cc.  62  —  65)  he 

1  St.  Jer.,  De  viris  illustr.,   c.    15. 

2  Hist,   eccl.,   iii.    15,   34;   cf.   Chron.  ad  an.   Abrah.   2 no. 

3  Dio   Cassius,  Hist.  Rom.,   Ixvii.    14;   cf.   Suet.,  Domit.,   c.    15. 

4  Comm.  in  Jo.,  vi.  36.  5  Hist,  eccl.,  iii.    15. 
6  Phil.  iv.  3. 

§    8.      CLEMENT    OF    ROME.  27 

summarizes  what  he  has  already  said.  Long  ago  Photius  recognized1 
the  simplicity  and  clearness  of  his  style.  The  name  of  Clement  does 
not  appear  in  the  Letter;  it  presents  itself,  formally,  as  a  writing  of 
the  Christian  community  at  Rome.  There  can  be  no  doubt,  however, 
that  it  is  the  work  of  Clement,  who  wrote  as  the  head  and  represen 
tative  of  the  Roman  community 2.  Quite  decisive  are  the  words  of 
Dionysius  of  Corinth  in  his  reply  to  a  letter  of  Pope  Soter 3  written 
about  170:  «To-day  we  have  celebrated  the  Lord's  holy  day,  in 
which  we  have  read  your  Letter.  From  it,  whenever  we  read  it, 
we  shall  always  be  able  to  draw  advice,  as  also  from  the  former 
Letter  which  was  written  to  us  by  Clement»  :  COQ  xal  rqy  rcporipav 
Tjtuv  dia  KkrjiJLZVToc,  fpayzlaav,  sc.  imffToj^Vf  Without  naming  him, 
St.  Polycarp  quotes  Clement  in  his  own  Letter  to  the  Philippians. 
The  Letter  of  Clement  was  probably  composed  towards  the  end  of 
the  reign  of  Domitian  (Si — 96)  or  the  beginning  of  that  of  Nerva 
(96 — 98).  From  the  lost  work  of  Hegesippus,  Eusebius  learned  that 
the  agitation  and  discord  at  Corinth  which  gave  occasion  to  the 
Letter,  arose  in  the  time  of  Domitian4.  In  the  history  of  Christian 
doctrine  this  communication  to  the  Church  of  Corinth  is  very  import 
ant  as  a  «de  facto »  witness  to  the  primacy  of  the  Roman  Church. 
The  hypothesis  that  the  Corinthians  solicited  the  intervention  of  the 
Roman  Church  is  incompatible  with  certain  passages  in  the  Letter 
(cc.  i.  i  ;  47,  6 — 7).  It  may  be  added  that  the  primitive  authority 
of  that  Church  shines  out  all  the  more  clearly  if  it  be  accepted 
that  it  dealt  unasked  with  the  affairs  of  the  Corinthian  Church,  in 
the  conviction  that  the  restoration  of  order  was  a  duty  incumben 
upon  it. 

The  Letter  to  the  Corinthians,  and  the  so-called  Second  Letter  to  the 
same,  have  come  down  to  us  in  two  Greek  manuscripts,  the  Codex  Hiero- 
solymitanus  of  1056  (§  6,  4;  7,  4)  and  the  so-called  Codex  Alexandrinus, 
the  latter  being  the  well-known  fifth-century  biblical  codex  of  the  British 
Museum  at  London.  In  the  latter  manuscript  the  text  of  both  Letters, 
particularly  that  of  the  second,  has  reached  us  in  a  very  imperfect  condition. 
The  Codex  Alexandrinus  has  been  reproduced  in  photographic  facsimile: 
Facsimile  of  the  Codex  Alexandrinus,  vol.  IV.  New  Testament  and  Cle 
mentine  Epistles,  London,  1879.  A  similar  photographic  reproduction 
of  the  text  of  Clement  as  found  in  the  Codex  Hierosolymitanus  (fol. 
5iv — 76r)  may  be  seen  in  Lightfoot,  The  Apostolic  Fathers,  part  I  (1890), 
i.  421 — 474.  A  very  old  and  very  literal  Latin  version  of  the  first  Letter 
was  edited  by  G.  Morin  from  a  codex  of  the  eleventh  century,  Mared- 
sous,  1894  (Anecdota  Maredsolana,  ii).  Cf.  A.  Harnack  in  Sitzungsberichte 
der  kgl.  preufi.  Akademie  der  Wissenschaften,  Berlin,  1894,  pp.  261 — 273, 
601 — 621;  E.  Wolff lin  in  Archiv  fiir  latein.  Lexikographie  und  Grammatik 
(1894),  ix.  81 — 100 ;  H.  Kihn  in  Theol.  Quartalschrift  (1894),  Ixxvi. 

1  Bibl.  cod.,  p.    126. 

2  Ens.,  Hist,   eccl.,  iii.   38,    I.      St.  Jer.,  De  viris  illustr.,   c.    15. 

3  Ens.,   ib.,  iv.   23,    n.  4  Ib.,  iii.    16;   iv.  22,    I. 


540 — 549.  An  ancient  Syriac  version  of  both  Letters  is  met  with  in  a 
Cambridge  manuscript  of  1170;  the  more  important  readings  were  publish 
ed  by  Light f o ot ,  St.  Clement  of  Rome,  an  Appendix,  London  1877, 
pp.  397 — 470;  cf.  Id.,  The  Apostolic  Fathers,  parti  (1890),  i.  129 — 146. 
The  complete  text  was  published  by  R.  L.  Bensly,  or  rather  after  his  death, 
by  R.  H.  Kennet,  London,  1899.  The  editio  princeps  of  both  Letters  is 
that  of  P.  Junius  (Young),  Oxford,  1633,  2.  ed.  1637,  whence  Cotelier 
took  them  for  his  edition  of  the  Patres  aevi  apostolici,  Paris,  1672.  Since 
then  they  are  found  in  every  edition  of  the  Apostolic  Fathers  (§  4).  Philo- 
theos  Bryennios  was  the  first  to  publish  from  the  Codex  Hierosol.  the  full 
text  of  both  Letters.  The  most  valuable  edition  is  that  of  Lightfoot  (f  1889), 
in  the  second  edition  of  the  first  part  of  his  Apostolic  Fathers  published 
at  London,  1890,  after  his  death.  The  first  Letter  was  also  edited  by 
R.  Knopf,  Leipzig,  1899  (Texte  und  Untersuchungen,  new  series,  v.  i.)  and 
in  the  first  volume  of  the  first  series  of  the  Bibliotheca  Sanctorum  Patrum 
edited  by  S.  Vizzini,  Rome,  1901.  German  translations  of  both  Letters 
have  been  published  recently  by  Karger,  Schalz,  and  Mayer  (§  4).  Among 
the  English  translations  see  that  of  Lightfoot ,  St.  Clement  of  Rome,  An 
Appendix  (1877),  345 — 390;  cf.  The  Apostolic  Fathers,  i  (1890),  ii.  271 — 316. 
From  the  literature  on  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  we  quote :  R.  A, 
Lipsius ,  De  dementis  Romani  epistola  ad  Corinthios  priore  disquisitio, 
Leipzig,  1855.  A.  Briill ,  Der  erste  Brief  des  Clemens  von  Rom  an  die 
Korinther  und  seine  geschichtliche  Bedeutung,  Freiburg,  1883.  W.  Wrede, 
Untersuchungen  zum  ersten  Clemensbrief,  Gottingen,  1891.  L.  Lemme,  Das 
Judenchristentum  der  Urkirche  und  der  Brief  des  Clemens  Romanus,  in  Neue 
Jahrbiicher  fur  deutsche  Theol.  (1892),  i.  325—480.  G.  Courtois,  L'fipitre 
de  Clement  de  Rome  (These),  Montauban,  1894.  J.  P.  Bang,  Studien  iiber 
Clemens  Romanus,  in  Theol.  Studien  und  Kritiken  (1898),  Ixxi.  431 — 486. 
Cf.  Ad.  Harnack,  in  Texte  und  Untersuchungen,  xx,  new  series,  v.  3  (1890), 
70 — 80.  B.  Heurtier,  Le  dogme  de  la  Trinite  dans  1'Epitre  de  St.  Clement 
de  Rome  et  le  Pasteur  d'Hermas  (These),  Lyon,  1890.  A.  Stahl,  Patristische 
Untersuchungen,  i.  Der  erste  Brief  des  romischen  Clemens,  Leipzig,  1901. 
W.  Scherer  ,  Der  erste  Clemensbrief  an  die  Korinther  nach  seiner  Bedeu 
tung  fur  die  Glaubenslehre  der  kathol.  Kirche  am  Atisgang  des  i.  Jahrhun- 
derts,  Regensburg,  1902.  For_the  style  and  diction  of  the  Letter  cf.  Wehofer 
op.  cit.  (§  7,  4).  E.  Dor sch,  Die  Gottheit  Jesu  bei  Clemens  von  Rom,  in 
Zeitschrift  fur  kath.  Theol.  (1902),  xxvi.  466—491.  J.  Tunnel,  Etude  sur 
la  Lettre  de  St.  Clement  de  Rome  aux  Corinthiens,  in  Annales  de  philos. 
chretienne  (1903),  Mai,  144—160.  A.  van  Veldhuyzen,  De  tekst  van  z.  g. 
eersten  Brief  van  Clemens  aari  de  Korinthiers,  in  Theol.  Studien  (1903),  i. 
i — 34.  B.  Schweitzer,  Glaube  und  Werke  bei  Clemens  Romanus,  in  Theol. 
Quartalschrift  (1903),  Ixxxv.  417—437,  547—575- 

the  manuscripts  (Greek  and  Syriac),  likewise  in  the  printed  editions, 
the  Letter  to  the  Corinthians  is  followed  by  another  work,  usually  called 
the  Second  Letter  to  the  Corinthians.  The  character  of  its  contents  is 
very  general:  the  Christian  must  lead  a  life  worthy  of  his  vocation, 
must  prefer  the  promises  of  the  future  to  the  joys  of  the  present,  must 
be  conscious  of  the  necessity  of  doing  penance  etc.  It  is  first  mention 
ed  by  Eusebius^  as  purporting  to  be  the  Second  Letter  of  Clement. 
Since  the  fifth  century  it  circulated  among  the  Greeks  and  Syrians  as 

1  Hist,   eccl.,   iii.   38,   4;   cf.  St.  Jer.,  De  viris  illustr.,  c.    15. 

§    8.      CLEMENT    OF    ROME.  2Q 

the  Second  Letter  of  Clement  to  the  Corinthians.  Eusebius  himself  had 
some  suspicion  that  it  could  not  be  the  work  of  Clement.  It  is  now 
generally  admitted  that  internal  and  external  criteria  make  it  clear  that 
the  document  belongs  to  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  if  not  to 
a  somewhat  later  date.  When  the  full  text  was  published  in  1875,  it 
became  evident  that  it  was  not  a  letter,  but  a  sermon  (cf.  cc.  15.  2; 
17.  3;  19.  i).  This  fact  is  enough  to  refute  a  former  hypothesis, 
recently  defended  by  Harnack,  that  in  this  writing  we  possess  the 
Letter  of  Pope  Soter  (166—174)  to  the  community  of  Corinth,  other 
wise  known  to  us  only  through  the  fragments  of  the  reply  of  Dio- 
nysius,  bishop  of  that  city1.  It  is  probable,  moreover,  that  this 
sermon  was  preached,  not  at  Rome  but  at  Corinth  (c.  7.  I — 3). 

For  the  manuscript-tradition,  editions,  and  versions  of  the  so-called  Se 
cond  Letter  to  the  Corinthians,  see  above,  p.  26.  H.  Hagemann ,  Uber 
den  zweiten  Brief  des  Clemens  von  Rom,  in  Theol.  Quartalschrift  (1861), 
xliii.  509 — 531.  Ad.  Harnack,  Uber  den  sog.  zweiten  Brief  des  Clemens 
an  die  Korinther,  in  Zeitschr.  fiir  Kirchengesch.  (1876 — 1877),  i.  264 — 283, 
329 — 364.  Id.,  Gesch.  der  altchristl.  Literatur,  ii.  i  438 — 450.  Funk,  Der 
sog.  zweite  Clemensbrief,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr.,  Ixxxiv.  (1902)  345 — 364. 
R.  Knopf,  Die  Anagnose  zum  zweiten  Clemensbriefe,  in  Zeitschrift  fiir  die 
neutestamentl.  Wissensch.  1902,  iii.  266 — 279. 

4.  THE  TWO  LETTERS  TO  VIRGINS.  Two  Letters  in  Syriac  have 
come  down  to  us  under  the  name  of  Clement.  Both  are  address 
ed  to  Virgins,  i.  e.  to  unmarried  persons  or  ascetics  of  both  sexes; 
their  purpose  is  to  demonstrate  the  excellence  of  the  state  of  vir 
ginity,  and  also  to  furnish  rules  of  conduct  whereby  to  avoid  the 
perils  of  that  condition.  Cotterill  discovered  (1884)  in  the  « Pandects » 
of  the  Palestinian  monk  Antiochus  (c.  620)  lengthy  fragments  of  a 
Greek  text  of  both  Letters.  There  is  every  probability  that  the  Greek 
text  is  the  original  from  which  the  Syriac  version  was  made.  The 
earliest  traces  of  the  Letters  are  in  Epiphanius  -.  Their  evident  op 
position  to  the  «Subintroductae»  makes  it  probable  that  they  were 
written  in  the  third  century,  perhaps  in  Syria  or  Palestine.  It  is 
clear  from  Epiphanius  (1.  c.)  that  in  the  fourth  century  they  were 
held  there  in  great  esteem.  As  the  conclusion  is  lacking  to  the 
first  and  the  introduction  to  the  second,  it  is  very  probable  that 
originally  the  two  Letters  were  one  document. 

The  Syriac  text  of  the  two  Letters  was  found  by  J.  ?.  Wetstein  in  a 
Peschitto-Codex  of  the  New  Testament,  of  the  year  1470,  and  edited  by  him 
at  Leyden  in  1752  with  a  Latin  version.  A  reprint  of  the  Syriac  text  of 
Wetstein  is  found  in  Gallandi,  Bibl.  vet.  Patr.,  i.,  and  in  Migne ,  PG.,  i. 
P.  Zingerle  published  a  German  translation  at  Vienna,  1827.  The  Syriac 
text  was  re-edited,  with  a  Latin  version,  by  J.  T/i.  Beelcn,  Louvain,  1856. 
This  Latin  translation  is  found,  with  corrections,  in  Funk,  Opp.  Patr. 
Apostol.,  ii.  i — 27.  Cf.  J.  M.  Cotterill,  Modem  Criticism  and  Clement's 

1  FMS.,  Hist,   eccl.,  iv.   23,    10 — 12;   ii.   25,   8. 

-  Haer.,   xxx.    15;    cf.    St.   Jer.,  Adv.  Jovin.,    i.    12. 


Epistles  to  Virgins  (first  printed  1756)  or  their  Greek  version  newly  dis 
covered  in  Antiochus  Palaestinensis,  Edinburgh,  1884.  Ad.  Harnack,  Die 
pseudo-clementinischen  Briefe  De  virginitate  und  die  Entstehung  des  Monch- 
tums,  in  Sitzungsberichte  der  kgl.  preuft.  Akad.  der  Wissensch.,  Berlin, 
1891,  pp.  361 — 385.  D.  Volter,  Die  Apostolischen  Vater  neu  untersucht. 
Part  i. :  Clemens,  Hennas,  Barnabas.  Leyden,  1904.  - 

§  9.     Ignatius  of  Antioch. 

I.  TRADITION  OF  THE  SEVEN  EPISTLES.  -  -  Ignatius,  called  also 
Theophorus,  the  second  or  (if  we  include  St.  Peter)  the  third  bishop 
of  Antioch1,  was  exposed  to  wild  beasts  at  Rome2  under  Trajan, 
i.  e.  between  98  and  ii/3.  He  was  taken  from  Antioch  to  Rome 
in  the  custody  of  soldiers,  and  on  the  way  wrote  seven  Letters  to 
the  Christians  of  Ephesus,  Magnesia,  Tralles,  Rome,  Philadelphia, 
Smyrna,  and  to  Polycarp,  bishop  of  the  latter  city.  The  collection 
of  these  Letters  that  lay  before  Eusebius*  has  been  lost;  but  later 
collections  of  Ignatian  Letters  have  been  preserved,  in  which  much 
scoria  is  mixed  with  the  pure  gold.  The  oldest  of  these,  usually 
called  the  Long  Recension,  contains  seven  genuine  and  six  spurious 
Letters,  but  even  the  genuine  ones  do  not  appear  in  their  original 
form;  they  are  all  more  or  less  enlarged  and  interpolated.  The  spurious 
Letters  are  those  of  a  certain  Maria  of  Cassobola  to  Ignatius,  his  reply, 
and  Letters  from  him  to  the  people  of  Tarsus,  Philippi,  Antioch,  and 
to  the  deacon  Hero  of  Antioch.  This  recension  is  extant  in  the  original 
Greek,  and  in  an  ancient  Latin  version.  It  seems  certain  that  we 
owe  to  one  and  the  same  hand  the  forgery  of  the  spurious  Letters, 
the  interpolation  of  the  genuine  ones,  and  the  union  of  all  in  the  Long 
Recension.  The  forger  was  an  Apollinarist,  for  he  twice  denies  that 
the  Redeemer  possessed  a  human  soul  (Philipp.  v.  2.  Philad.,  vi.  6). 
According  to  the  researches  of  Funk,  he  is  very  probably  identical  with 
the  compiler  of  the  Apostolic  Constitutions  that  were  put  together  in 
Syria  early  in  the  fifth  century.  Later  on,  a  «Laus  Heronis»  was  added 
to  this  collection,  i.  e.  a  panegyric  of  Ignatius  in  the  form  of  a  prayer 
to  him  made  by  Hero,  very  probably  written  in  Greek;  it  has  reached 
us  only  in  a  Latin  and  a  Coptic  (Lower  Egyptian  or  Memphitic)  text. 
Somewhere  between  this  Long  Recension  of  the  Ignatian  Letters 
and  the  collection  known  to  Eusebius  is  a  third  collection  that  has 
also  reached  us  in  Greek  and  Latin.  It  contains  the  seven  genuine 
Letters  in  their  original  form,  and  also  the  six  spurious  ones,  with  the 
exception  of  the  Letter  to  the  Philippians;  it  has  been  recently  called 
by  Funk,  and  not  improperly,  the  Mixed  Collection.  In  this  collection 
the  (genuine)  Letter  to  the  Romans  is  incorporated  with  the  so-called 

1  Orig.,  Horn.  vi.   in  Luc. ;   Eus.,  Hist,   eccl.,   iii.   22. 

2  Orig.,  ib. ;  Eus.,  ib.   iii.   36,   3. 

3  Eus.,   Chron.  post  an.  Abr.   2123. 

4  Hist,  eccl.,   iii.  36,  4  ff. 

§    9-       IGNATIUS    OF    ANTIOCH.  3! 

Martyrium  Colbercinum,  a  document  that  closes  the  collection,  and 
pretends  to  be  the  account  given  by  an  eye-witness  of  the  martyrdom  of 
St.  Ignatius.  Closely  related  to  this  collection  is  another  that  has  reached 
us  only  in  Armenian;  it  too  has  the  seven  genuine  and  the  six  spurious 
letters.  Its  original  is  a  Syriac  text  now  lost.  Similarly,  there  has 
been  preserved  in  Syriac  an  abbreviated  recension  of  the  three  genuine 
Letters  to  the  Ephesians,  the  Romans,  and  to  Polycarp.  Finally  we 
must  mention  four  Letters  preserved  in  Latin :  two  from  Ignatius  to 
the  Apostle  John,  and  one  to  the  Blessed  Virgin,  with  her  reply. 
These  four  Letters  may  be  traced  back  to  the  twelfth  century;  very 
probably  they  are  of  Western  origin. 

It  is  clear  from  the  preceding  that  the  authentic  text  of  the  seven 
genuine  Letters  must  be  gathered  from  the  Mixed  Recension ;  whose  Greek 
original  is  represented  in  a  single  codex  that  is,  moreover,  incomplete  - 
the  Mediceo-Laurentianus  of  the  eleventh  century,  preserved  at  Florence. 
The  Letter  to  the  Romans  is  lacking  in  this  manuscript,  but  is  found  (as 
a  part  of  the  Martyrium  Colbertinum)  in  the  tenth  century  Codex  Colberti- 
nus  (Paris).  Two  other  codices  are  now  known,  but  they  present  no  sub 
stantial  variation;  cf.  Funk,  Patres  Apostolici,  2.  ed.,  torn.  ii.  Ixxii  sq. 
However,  even  the  ancient  Latin  translation  in  the  Mixed  Recension  may 
lay  claim  to  the  value  of  a  Greek  text.  In  addition,  the  text  of  the 
Syro-Armenian  collection  and  that  of  the  Long  Recension  merit  conside 
ration.  There  are  several  Greek  codices  of  the  latter;  among  which  the 
Codex  Monacensis  (olim  Augustanus)  of  the  tenth  or  eleventh  century 
must  be  regarded  as  the  chief.  J.  Voss  was  the  first  to  edit  the  original 
text  of  the  genuine  Letters,  with  the  exception  of  that  to  the  Romans, 
Amsterdam,  1646.  Th.  Ruinart  published  the  text  of  the  latter  from  the 
Martyrium  Colbertinum,  Paris,  1689.  The  text  in  Migne,  PG.,  v.  625 — 728 
is  taken  from  Hefele,  Opp.  Patr.  apostol.  (3.  ed.  Tiibingen,  1847).  The 
most  recent  and  best  editions  are  those  of  Zahn,  Ignatii  et  Polycarpi 
epistulae,  martyria,  fragmenta  (Patr.  apostol.  opp.  Rec.  O.  dc  Gebhardt, 
Harnack ,  Zahn,  fasc.  ii),  Leipzig,  1876;  Funk,  Opp.  Patr.  apostol.,  i., 
Tiibingen  1878,  1887,  1901;  Ligktfoot ,  The  Apostolic  Fathers,  Part  ii: 
St.  Ignatius,  St.  Polycarp,  London  1885,  1889,  2  vol.  Lightfoot's 
edition  presents  most  fully  all  ancient  ecclesiastical  tradition  concerning 
the  Letters.  (Ignatii  Antiocheni  et  Polycarpi  Smyrnaei  epistulae  et  mar 
tyria,  edidit  et  adnotationibns  instruxit  A.  Hilgenfdd ,  Berlin,  1902. 
Cf.  also  Ignatii  et  Polycarpi  Epistulae  in  the  Bibliotheca  SS.  Patrum  of 
Vizzini,  series  I,  vol.  II,  Roma,  1902.)  See  §  4  for  the  latest  English  and 
German  versions  of  the  genuine  Letters.  There  is  an  English  version  in 
Lightfoot,  ib.  ii.  539—570,  and  in  J.  H.  Srawley,  London,  1900,  2  vol. 
A.  Hilgenfeld,  Die  Ignatiusbriefe  und  die  neueste  Verteidigung  ihrer  Echt- 
heit,  in  Zeitschr.  fur  wissenschaftl.  Theologie  (1903),  xlvi.  171  — 194.  Id., 
ib.  499—505.  T.  Nicklin,  Three  Passages  in  SS.  Ignatius  and  Polycarp, 
in  Journal  of  Theological  Studies  (1902  — 1903),  iv.  443.  A.  N.  Jannaris, 
An  Ill-used  Passage  of  St.  Ignatius  (ad  Philad.  viii.  2),  in  Classical  Review 
(1903),  xviii.  24- — 35.  J.  Drdseke ,  Fin  Testimonium  Ignatianum,  in  Zeit- 
schrift  fiir  wissenschaftl.  Theol.  (1903),  xlvi,  506 — 512.  The  Greek  text 
of  the  Long  Recension  was  first  edited  by  V.  Hartung  (Frid),  Dillingen, 
1557.  The  text  of  Migne ,  op.  cit.  v.  729—941  is  taken  from  Cotelerius, 
Patres  aevi  apost.  t.  ii.  For  new  editions  cf.  Zahn,  op.  cit.  pp.  174 — 296; 
Funk,  op.  cit.  ii.  46 — 213;  Lightfoot,  op.  cit.  ii.  709  —  857. 


For  the  author  of  the  Long  Recension,  his  theological  tendencies,  and 
his  identity  with  the  compiler  of  the  Apostolic  Constitutions,  see  Funk, 
Die  Apostolischen  Konstitutionen,  Rottenburg,  1891,  pp.  281—355.  Id., 
Kirchengeschichtliche  Abhandlungen  und  Untersuchungen  (1899),  ii.  347 
to  359  i  C'  Hohhey ,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1898),  Ixxx.  380 — 390; 
A.  Amelungk,  in  Zeitschr.  fiir  wissenschaftl.  Theol.  (1899),  xlii.  508 — 581; 
(to  the  contrary:  F.  X.  Funk,  Theologie  und  Zeit  des  Pseudo-Ignatius,  in 
Theol.  Quartalschr.  [1901],  Ixxxiii.  411 — 426,  and  Id.,  Le  Pseudo-Ignace, 
in  Revue  d'hist.  ecclesiast.  [1900],  i.  61  —  65).  A.  Sta/it,  Patristische  Unter 
suchungen,  II:  Ignatius  von  Antiochien,  Leipzig,  1901.  The  Latin  text  of 
«Laus  Heronis»  is  in  Migne,  PL.  v.  945 — 948;  cf.  Zahn  p.  297;  Funk  ii. 
214;  Light/cot  ii.  893.  Light  foot  gives  the  prayer  in  a  Lower  Egyptian 
or  Memphitic  version  (p.  88if.),  and  attempts  a  reconstruction  of  the 
Greek  text  (p.  893  f.).  For  the  Latin  version  of  the  Long  Recension  see 
Zahn  p.  175 — 296;  Funk  ii.  47 — 213.  The  Latin  version  of  the  Mixed 
Recension  is  in  Funk,,  Die  Echtheit  der  Ignatianischen  Briefe  aufs  neue 
verteidigt,  Tubingen,  1883,  p.  151 — 204,  and  in  Lightfoot  ii.  597  —  652. 
P.  de  Lagarde  published  both  Latin  versions  at  Gottingen,  1882.  The 
Lightfoot  edition  contains  (ii.  659 — 687)  the  Syriac  abbreviated  recension 
of  the  three  Letters  to  Polycarp,  the  Ephesians,  and  the  Romans,  first 
made  known  in  1845  ^7  ^  Cureton;  it  also  contains  some  stray  Syriac 
fragments  of  the  genuine  Letters  in  their  original  form,  edited  by  W.  Wright. 
For  earlier  editions  and  recensions  of  these  Syriac  texts  see  E.  Nestle, 
Syrische  Grammatik  (Berlin,  1888),  ii.  54,  s.  v.  Ignatius  Antiochenus.  The 
Armenian  version,  derived  from  the  Syriac,  was  first  published  at  Con 
stantinople  in  1783.  It  also  appeared  at  Leipzig  in  1849,  in  y.  H.  Peter- 
manris  edition  of  the  Ignatian  Letters.  The  four  Letters  extant  in  Latin 
only  are  found  in  Migne,  PL.,  v.  941 — 946;  Zahn  pp.  297 — 300;  Funk 
pp.  214 — 217;  Lightfoot,  ii.  653 — 656.  (Ad.  Harnack ,  Zu  Ignatius  und 
Polycarp,  in  Miscellen  [Texte  und  Untersuchungen,  new  series,  v.  3] 
[Leipzig,  1900],  pp.  80 — 86.) 

2.  CONTENTS  OF  THE  LETTERS.  —  On  his  way  to  martyrdom  Ignatius 
probably  embarked  at  Seleucia  for  some  port  in  Cilicia  or  Pamphylia; 
thence,  as  his  Letters  bear  witness,  he  was  taken  by  land  through 
Asia  Minor.  At  Smyrna  there  was  a  somewhat  lengthy  halt,  and  he 
met  there  the  envoys  from  several  Christian  communities  of  Asia  Minor 
come  to  express  their  veneration  for  the  confessor  of  the  faith.  To 
the  representatives  of  Ephesus,  Magnesia,  and  Tralles,  Ignatius  gave 
Letters  for  those  communities,  in  which,  after  making  known  his  gra 
titude,  he  warned  them  to  beware  of  heretics  (Judaizers  and  Docetae, 
or  rather,  perhaps,  Judaizing  Docetae).  He  also  exhorts  them  to  be 
joyfully  submissive  to  the  ecclesiastical  authorities.  «Be  ye  careful  to 
do  all  things  in  divine  concord  flv  opowia  rou  tisouj.  This,  because 
the  bishop  presides  in  the  place  of  God, 'and  the  priests  are  as  the 
senate  of  the  Apostles,  and  the  deacons  .  .  .  have  confided  to  them 
the  ministry  of  Jesus  Christ »  (Magn.,  6.  i).  «Let  all  reverence  the 
deacons  as  Jesus  Christ,  and  also  the  bishop ;  for  he  is  the  image  of 
the  Father,  but  the  priests  as  the  senate  of  God  and  the  college 
of  the  Apostles.  Without  these  (ecclesiastical  superiors)  one  cannot 
speak  of  a  church »  (Trail,  3.  i).  A  fourth  Letter  was  sent  by  Ignatius 

§    9-      IGNATIUS    OF    ANTIOCH.  33 

from  Smyrna  to  the  Christians  ,of  Rome,  to  induce  them  to  abandon 
all  attempts  to  prevent  the  execution  of  his  death-sentence.  «I  fear 
that  your  love  will  cause  me  a  damage »  (i.  2).  «For  I  shall  not 
have  such  another  occasion  to  enter  into  the  possession  of  God»  (2.  i). 
«I  am  the  wheat  of  God,  and  I  must  be  ground  by  the  teeth  of 
wild  beasts  that  I  may  become  the  pure  bread  of  Christ»  (4.  i). 
The  preamble  of  this  Letter  offers  many  difficulties.  However,  when 
he  calls  the  Roman  community  (ixxtyaia)  the  npoxa&yplvy  TTJQ  dfaTrqe, 
it  is  clear  that  these  words  do  not  signify  « first  in  charity »  or  in  the 
exercise  of  love,  but  rather  « presiding  over  the  society  of  love »,  i.  e. 
the  entire  Church.  The  word  d-fairy  often  signifies  in  Ignatius  the 
entire  community  of  Christians.  -  -  From  Smyrna  he  went  to  Troas 
where  he  was  met  by  a  messenger  of  the  Church  of  Antioch  with 
the  news  that  the  persecution  of  the  Christians  had  ceased  in  that 
city.  From  Troas  he  wrote  to  the  Christians  of  Philadelphia  and 
Smyrna,  and  also  to  Polycarp,  the  bishop  of  the  latter  city.  In  the  first 
two  Letters  he  expresses  his  thanks  for  the  evidences  of  their  love, 
recommends  the  sending  of  messengers  to  congratulate  those  of  Antioch 
on  the  restoration  of  peace,  and  exhorts  and  warns  them  against  the 
heretical  ideas  already  mentioned.  «I  cried  out  (at  Philadelphia)  with 
a  loud  voice,  with  the  voice  of  God :  hold  fast  to  the  bishop,  to 
the  presbytery,  to  the  deacons»  (Philad.,  7.  i).  « Wherever  the  bishop 
is,  there  let  the  people  be,  as  wherever  Jesus  Christ  is,  there  is  the 
Catholic  Church»  (Smyrn.,  8.  2;  it  is  here  that  we  first  meet  with  the 
words  « Catholic  Church »  in  the  sense  of  the  entire  body  of  the 
faithful).  Ignatius  meant  to  request  the  other  communities  of  Asia 
Minor  to  express,  by  messenger  or  letter,  their  sympathies  with  the 
Christians  of  Antioch,  but  was  prevented  by  an  unexpected  and  hasty 
departure  from  Troas;  he  therefore  asks  Polycarp  to  appeal  in  his 
name  to  those  communities  of  Asia.  From  Troas  he  \vent  to  Neapolis, 
crossing  on  his  way  Macedonia  and  Illyria.  It  was  probably  at  Dyr- 
rhachium  (Durazzo),  or  at  Apollonia,  that  he  began  his  sea-voyage. 
From  Brindisi  he  travelled  afoot  to  Rome,  where  according  to  the 
unanimous  evidence  of  antiquity  he  reached  the  goal  of  his  desire. 
His  literary  remains  are  the  outpouring  of  a  pastoral  heart,  aflame 
with  a  consuming  love  for  Jesus  Christ  and  His  Church.  The  style 
is  original  and  extremely  vivacious,  the  expression  sonorous  and  often 
incorrect,  while  the  strong  emotions  of  the  writer  interfere  frequently 
with  the  ordinary  forms  of  expression.  Very  frequently  he  reminds 
us  of  certain  epistles  of  the  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles. 

Th.  Dreher,  S.  Ignatii  episc.  Antioch.  de  Christo  Deo  doctrina  (Progr.), 
Sigmaringen,  1877.  J.  Nirschl ,  Die  Theologie  des  hi.  Ignatius,  Mainz, 
1880.  y.  H.  Newman,  The  Theology  of  St.  Ignatius,  in  Hist.  Sketches  I 
(London,  1890),  v.  222 — 262.  E.  Freiherr  v.  d.  Goltz,  Ignatius  von  An- 
tiochien  als  Christ  und  Theologe,  Leipzig,  1894  (Texte  und  Untersuchungen, 

BARDENHEWER-SHAHAN,  Patrology.  •} 


xii.  3).  E.  Bruston ,  Ignace  d'Antioche,  ses  epitres,  sa  theologie,  Paris, 
1897.  The  term  KpoxafhjjievT)  TTJ*  aya-^c,  in  the  inscription  of  the  Letter  to 
the  Romans,  is  discussed  by  Ad.  Harnack ,  in  Sitzungsberichte  der  kgl. 
prenft.  Akad.  der  Wissensch.  (Berlin,  1896),  in — 131;  J.  Chapman,  in 
Revue  Bene'dictine  (1896),  xiii.  385  —  400;  Funk,  Kirchengeschichtliche 
Abhandlungen  und  Untersuchungen  (Paderborn,  1897),  i.  i — 23.  (Cf.  also 
the  superficial  and  antiquated  sketch  of  R.  Mariano,  II  Primato  del 
Pontefice  romano  istituzione  dtvina  ?  and  L'  Epistola  ai  Romani  d'  Ignazio 
d'  Antiochia,  in  his  II  Cristianesimo  nei  primi  tre  secoli  [Scritti  vari,  iv — v.], 
Firence,  1902,  pp.  390 — 403.) 

3.  AUTHENTICITY.  —  For  centuries  the  authenticity  of  the  Ignatian 
Letters  has  been  disputed.  The  successive  discovery  and  publication 
of  the  collections  and  recensions  described  above  caused  the  question 
to  pass  through  many  phases,  while  the  incomparable  value  of  the 
evidence  that  the  Letters,  if  authentic,  give  concerning  the  constitu 
tion  and  organization  of  the  primitive  Christian  communities  continually 
fed  the  flame  of  discussion.  Although  it  cannot  be  said  that  there 
is  at  present  an  absolute  harmony  of  opinion,  the  end  of  the  contro 
versy  is  at  hand,  since  even  the  principal  non-Catholic  scholars,  Zahn, 
Lightfoot,  Harnack,  unreservedly  maintain  that  the  Letters  are 
authentic.  The  evidence  for  their  authenticity  is  simply  overwhelming. 
Irenaeus  himself  refers  to  a  passage  of  the  Letter  to  the  Romans 
(c.  4.  i)  in  the  following  words1:  «Quemadmodum  quidam  de  nostris 
dixit  propter  martyrium  in  Deum  adiudicatus  ad  bestias».  The  ro 
mance  of  Lucian  of  Samosata,  De  morte  Peregrini,  written  in  167, 
agrees  to  such  an  extent  with  the  Letters  of  Ignatius,  both  as  to 
facts  and  phraseology,  that  the  coincidence  seems  inexplicable 
except  on  the  hypothesis  that  Lucian  made  a  tacit  use  of  these 
Letters.  A  significant  phrase  in  the  Letter  of  the  Church  of  Smyrna, 
apropos  of  the  death  of  Polycarp  (c.  3) ,  has  always  recalled  an 
expression  in  the  Letter  to  the  Romans  (c.  5.  2).  Polycarp  him 
self  says  in  his  Letter  to  the  Philippians:  «The  Letters  of  Ignatius 
that  he  sent  to  us,  and  such  others  as  we  had  in  hand,  we  have 
sent  to  you,  according  to  your  wish.  They  are  added  to  this  Letter. 
You  will  find  them  very  useful;  for  they  contain  faith  and  patience 
and  much  edification  relative  to  Our  Lord.»  These  words,  written 
shortly  after  the  death  of  Ignatius,  are  so  final  and  decisive  that  the 
opponents  of  the  authenticity  of  the  Ignatian  Letters  are  obliged  to 
reject  the  Letter  of  Polycarp  as  a  forgery,  or  at  least  to  maintain 
that  the  passages  concerning  Ignatius  are  interpolated.  They  have 
sought  to  counterbalance  external  evidence  by  objections  drawn  from 
the  Letters  themselves.  They  argue  that  the  portrait  of  the  bishop 
of  Antioch  as  presented  in  these  Letters,  has  been  disfigured  by  the 
addition  of  impossible  features;  that  heresy  was  neither  so  important 
a  matter  nor  so  fully  developed  in  the  time  of  Ignatius;  above  all, 

1  Adv.  haer.,  v.   28,   4. 

§10.      POLYCARP    OF    SMYRNA.  35 

that  the  ecclesiastical  constitution  exhibited  in  the  Letters  has  at 
tained  a  maturity  which  is  really  met  with  only  in  a  later  period.  It 
is  true  that  in  these  Letters  the  bishop  is  exhibited,  in  language  of 
almost  surprising  precision,  as  distinct  from  the  presbyters;  that  the 
monarchical,  and  not  the  collegiate  or  presbyteral,  constitution  of 
the  Church  is  set  forth  as  an  accomplished  fact.  But  if  Irenaeus 
could  compile  a  catalogue  of  the  bishops  of  Rome  that  goes  back  to 
the  Apostles1,  it  becomes  impossible  to  maintain  that  the  episcopate 
began  only  with  the  second  century.  Nor  can  it  be  said  that  the 
Letters  were  forged  in  the  interest  of  episcopal  power;  the  episcopate 
is  set  forth  in  them  as  something  well-established  and  accepted,  of 
whose  legitimacy  no  one  doubts.  Still  less  can  an  argument  be 
drawn  from  the  history  of  heresy;  the  heretic  Cerinthus  flourished 
in  the  life-time  of  the  Apostle  John.  All  search  for  the  traces  of  a 
polemic  in  these  Letters  against  the  Gnosis  of  Valentinian  has 
proved  fruitless.  Finally,  the  pretended  lack  of  naturalness  in  the 
person  of  Ignatius  would  become  a  positive  mystery  if  such  a  figure 
had  been  created  by  a  forger. 

Not  long  after  the  discovery  of  the  Mixed  Recension  the  Anglican 
y.  Pearson  successfully  vindicated  the  authenticity  of  the  Seven  Letters. 
(Vindiciae  epistolarum  S.  Ignatii,  Cambridge,  1672,  Oxford,  1852;  Migne, 
PG.,  v.  37 — 473)  against  the  Reformer  jf.  Dallaeus  (De  scriptis  quae  sub 
Dionysii  Areop.  et  Ignatii  Antioch.  nominibus  circumferuntur ,  Genevae, 
1666).  After  editing  (1845)  the  Syriac  text  of  the  three  abbreviated 
Letters  to  the  Ephesians,  Romans,  and  Polycarp,  W.  Cureton  published  a 
quite  untenable  apology  for  them  as  the  genuine  Letters  of  Ignatius.  He 
maintained  that  the  longer  form  of  the  same  in  the  Mixed  Recension 
was  the  work  of  an  interpolator,  and  the  remaining  four  simply  forgeries 
(Vindiciae  Ignatianae,  London,  1846).  For  the  more  recent  literature  cf. 
J.Nirschl,  Das  Todesjahr  des  hi.  Ignatius  von  Antiochien  und  die  drei  orien- 
talischen  Feldzlige  des  Kaisers  Trajan,  Passau,  1869.  Th.  Zahn,  Ignatius  von 
Antiochien,  Gotha,  1873.  In  his  Geschichte  der  altchristlicnen  Literatur, 
ii.  i,  381 — 406,  Ad.  Harnack  abandoned,  as  antiquated,  the  hypothesis  of 
his  earlier  work:  Die  Zeit  des  Ignatius  (Leipzig,  1878),  in  which  he  had 
attempted  to  place  the  death  of  Ignatius  about  138.  F.  X.  Funk,  Die  Echt- 
heit  der  Ignatianischen  Briefe  aufs  neue  verteidigt,  Tubingen,  1883.  W.  D. 
Killen,  The  Ignatian  Epistles  entirely  spurious,  Edinburgh,  1866.  R.  C. 
Jenkins,  Ignatian  Difficulties  and  Historic  Doubts,  London,  1890.  D.  Volter, 
Die  Ignatianischen  Briefe,  auf  ihren  Ursprung  untersucht,  Tubingen,  1892. 
y.  Rtville,  Etudes  sur  les  origines  de  1'episcopat.  La  valeur  du  temoignage 
d'Ignace  d'Antioche,  Paris,  1891.  Id.,  Les  origines  de  1'episcopat,  Part,  i 
(Paris,  1894),  442—520.  L.  Tonetti,  II  Peregrinus  di  Luciano  e  i  cristiani 
del  suo  tempo,  in  Miscellanea  di  storia  e  coltura  eccles.  (1904),  72 — 84. /c/. 

r  y 

§   10.     Polycarp  of  Smyrna. 

I.  HIS  LIFE.  --  Irenseus  has  preserved  some  precious  details  con 
cerning  Polycarp,  the  bishop  of  Smyrna,  to  whom  Ignatius  wrote  one 
of  his  seven  Letters.  Irenaeus  had  listened,  as  a  boy,  to  the  dis- 

1  Adv.  haer.,  iii.   3,   3. 


courses  of  the  old  bishop,  and  had  « heard  him  tell  of  his  relations 
with  John  (the  Apostle)  and  with  others  who  had  seen  the  Lord,  and 
how  he  quoted  from  their  language,  and  how  much  he  had  learned 
from  them  concerning  the  Lord  and  His  miracles  and  teaching» J.  At 
the  end  of  154  or  at  the  beginning  of  155  Polycarp  visited  Rome, 
in  the  hope  of  coming  to  an  understanding  with  Pope  Anicetus 
concerning  the  manner  of  the  celebration  of  Easter,  «but  neither  could 
Anicetus  move  Polycarp  to  give  up  his  custom,  which  he  had  always 
observed  with  the  Apostle  John,  the  disciple  of  Our  Lord,  and  with 
the  other  Apostles  with  whom  he  had  conversed,  nor  could  Polycarp 
move  Anicetus  to  adopt  that  custom,  the  latter  declaring  that  he  was 
bound  to  keep  up  the  customs  of  his  predecessors  (rwv  -po  adroo 
TcpsafiuripcDv).  Nevertheless,  they  preserved  communion  with  one 
another,  and  in  order  to  do  him  honour,  Anicetus  caused  Polycarp  to 
celebrate  the  Eucharist  in  his  church,  and  they  parted  in  peace »  2. 
Not  long  after  this  incident  Polycarp  died  the  death  of  a  martyr 
at  Smyrna  in  his  eighty-sixth  year.  In  an  Encyclical  Letter  the  com 
munity  of  Smyrna  made  known  to  all  Christians  his  death  and  the 
circumstances  of  his  martyrdom.  From  its  context  (c.  21;  cf.  8,  i) 
we  can  ascertain  with  approximate  certainty  that  Polycarp  died  Fe 
bruary  23.,  in  155. 

Th.  Zahn,  Forschungen  zur  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons  und  der 
altkirchl.  Literatur  (1891),  iv.  249—283;  (1900),  vi.  94—109.  (K.  Bihl- 
meyer,  Der  Besuch  Polykarps  bei  Anicet  und  der  Osterfeierstreit,  in  Katholik 
[1902],  i.  314 — 327.)  Concerning  the  date  of  Polycarp's  death,  cf.  Harnack, 
Gesch.  der  altchristl.  Literatur  (1897),  ii.  i,  334 — 356.  P.  Corssen ,  Das 
Todesjahr  Polykarps,  in  Zeitschr.  fiir  neutestamentl.  Wissensch.  (1902),  iii. 
6 1 — 82.  For  the  encyclical  letter  of  the  community  of  Smyrna,  cf.  §  59,  2. 

2.  LETTER  TO  THE  PHILIPPIANS.  --  Irenaeus  speaks  of  Letters  sent 
by  Poly  carp  •«  partly  to  neighbouring  communities  to  confirm  them  (in 
the  faith),  partly  to  individual  brethren  to  instruct  and  exhort  them3.» 
On  another  occasion  he  writes:  « There  is  a  very  excellent  fixavcoTdrq} 
letter  of  Polycarp  to  the  Philippians,  from  which  the  form  of  his  faith 
and  the  teaching  of  truth  can  be  seen  by  those  who  are  of  good  will 
and  intent  on  their  salvation »  4.  Only  fragments  of  the  original  Greek 
have  reached  us,  but  we  possess  the  entire  text  in  an  old  Latin  trans 
lation.  It  is  a  word  of  comfort  written  at  the  request  of  the  com 
munity  of  Philippi  in  Macedonia,  and  encourages  all  its  members  to 
constancy ;  it  inculcates,  moreover,  the  special  duties  of  married  people, 
of  widows,  deacons,  youths,  virgins,  and  the  clergy.  This  Letter  of 
Polycarp  is  full  of  imitations  and  reminiscencies  of  the  Letter  of 
St.  Clement  to  the  Corinthians  (c.  9,  2;  13,  2).  As  late  as  the  end 

1  Iren.,  Ep.  ad  Florin.,  in  Eus.,  Hist.  eccl.  v.   20,   6. 

2  Iren.,  Ep.  ad  Viet.,   in  Ens.,  Hist,  eccl.,   v.   24,    16  sq. 
a  Hist,  eccl.,  v.   20,   8.  4  Adv.   haer.,   iii.   3,   4. 

§    10.      POLYCARP    OF    SMYRNA.  37 

of  the  fourth  century  some  communities  af  Asia  Minor  were  wont 
to  read  it  during  divine  service  *.  Some  recent  writers  have  disputed 
its  authenticity  or  denied  its  integrity,  but  only  with  the  object  of 
crippling  its  value  as  an  evidence  of  the  authenticity  of  the  Ignatian 
Letters  (cf.  §  9,  3).  Its  authenticity  is  guaranteed  by  Irenaeus;  nor 
can  the  .distinction  between  a  genuine  nucleus  and  later  accretions 
be  upheld,  in  view  of  the  striking  unity  of  its  style,  and  its  constant 
dependence  on  the  Letter  of  St.  Clement. 

The  Greek  codices  of  the  Letter  to  the  Philippians  are  all,  directly  or 
indirectly,  copies  of  one  exemplar;  all  end  at  c.  9,  2,  with  the  words  xai 
6t'  Tjfj-a?  6r:6.  The  rest  of  the  Letter  (cc.  10 — 14)  is  taken  from  an  old 
Latin  translation,  itself  very  carelessly  made.  However,  the  Greek  text  of 
chapters  9  and  13  has  been  preserved  in  the  Church  History  of  Eusebius  2. 
The  Latin  translation  was  edited  by  y.  Faber  Stapulensis,  Paris,  1498.  The 
Greek  text  (c.  i — 9)  was  first  edited  by  P.  Halloix,  Douai,  1633.  The 
Greek  text  in  Migne  (PG. ,  v.  1005—1016)  is  taken  from  Hefele,  Opp. 
Patr.  apost. ,  Tubingen,  1847.  The  most  important  recent  editions  are 
those  of  Zahn,  Leipzig,  1876;  Funk,  Tubingen,  1878,  1887,  1901 ;  Light  foot, 
London,  1885,  1889;  (Hilgenfeld,  Berlin,  1902;  Vizzini,  in  the  Bibliotheca 
Sanct.  Patrum,  series  ii,  vol.  ii,  Rome,  1901;  cf.  §  4;  9,  i).  Zahn  re 
translated  into  Greek  the  part  that  has  reached  us  in  Latin  only.  His 
translation  has  been  improved  by  Funk  in  some  places.  Lightfoot  executed 
a  new  re-translation.  New  editions  of  the  old  Latin  version  (PG. ,  v. 
1015 — 1022)  are  found  in  Zahn  1.  c.,  also  in  Funk,  Die  Echtheit  der 
Ignatianischen  Briefe,  Tubingen,  1883,  pp.  205  —  212.  Cf.  A.  Harnack,  Zu 
Polycarp  ad  Philipp.  ii. ,  in  Miscellen  (Texte  und  Untersuchungen ,  new 
series,  v.  3),  pp.  86—93.  For  new  versions  of  the  Letter  to  the  Philippians 
see  §  4.  (T.  Nicklin,  Three  Passages  in  SS.  Ignatius  and  Polycarp,  in 
Journal  of  Theological  Studies  [1902 — 1903],  iv.  443.)  Funk,  Die  Echtheit 
der  Ignat.  Briefe,  14—42:  «Der  Polykarpbrief».  The  hypothesis  of  an 
interpolation  proposed  by  A.  Ritschl  (Die  Entstehung  der  altkath.  Kirche, 
2  ed.,  Bonn,  1857,  584—600),  was  accepted  by  G.  Volkmar,  in  his  Epist. 
Polyc.  Smyrn.  genuina,  Zurich,  1885,  and  in  Theol.  Zeitschrift  aus  der 
Schweiz  (1886),  iii.  99—111,  also  by  A.  Hilgenfeld ,  in  Zeitschrift  fur 
wissenschaftl.  Theologie  (1888)  ,  xxix.  180—206.  J.  M.  Cotterill  found 
citations  from  this  Letter  in  the  « Pandects*  of  the  Palestinian  monk  Anti- 
ochus  (c.  620)  whereupon  he  declared  Antiochus  to  be  the  author  of  the 
Letter  of  Polycarp ;  cf  Journal  of  Philology  (1891),  xix.  241—285.  This 
discovery  did  not  merit  the  honour  of  the  solid  refutation  from  the  pen  of 
C.  Taylor,  ib.  (1892),  xx.  65—110.  (J.  Turmel,  Lettre  et  martyre  de  Saint 
Polycarpe,  in  Annales  de  philosophic  chret.  [i904[  22 — 33.) 

3.  LATIN  FRAGMENTS.  --  Five  small  Latin  fragments,  current  under 
the  name  of  Polycarp,  treat  of  certain  Gospel  texts;  they  are,  according 
to  all  appearances,  spurious. 

These  fragments  were  published  by  Fr.  Feuardent  in  the  notes  to  his 
edition  of  Irenaeus  (Cologne  1596,  reprinted  1639).  They  were  taken  by 
him  from  a  Latin  Catena  on  the  four  Gospels.  The  compiler  of  the  Ca 
tena,  now  lost,  had  found  these  fragments  in  a  work  of  Victor,  bishop  of 
Capua  (f  554).  Other  recensions  of  these  fragments  are  in  Migne  (1.  c. 

1  St.  Jer.,  De  viris  illustr.,   c.    17.  2  iii.   36,    13  — 15. 


v.  1025  — 1028),  Zahn  (1.  c.  171 — 172),  and  Lightfoot  (1.  c.  1001  — 1004), 
Funk,  Patres  apostolic!  (1901),  ii.  288  sq.  In  his  Geschichte  des  neu- 
testamentl.  Kanons,  i.  782  f.,  Zahn  undertook  to  defend  their  authenticity, 
with  the  exception  of  one  phrase. 

§  ii.     The  Shepherd  of  Hernias. 

I.  CONTENTS.  The  longest,  and  for  form  and  contents  the  most 
remarkable  of  the  writings  of  the  so-called  Apostolic  Fathers,  is  the 
Shepherd  (notp.ijv,  Pastor)  of  Hennas.  It  contains  five  Visions  (bpd- 
aeiq,  visiones),  twelve  Commandments  (ivroXai,  mandata),  and  ten 
Similitudes  (xapapoXai ,  similitudines).  This  triple  division  is  only 
external,  and  does  not  affect  the  contents.  Hermas  himself,  or  the 
angel  who  speaks  to  him,  seems  in  the  last  Vision  (v,  5)  to 
distinguish  two  parts :  the  preceding  Visions  (i — iv)  that  the  Church, 
in  the  guise  of  a  Matron,  exhibits  to  the  author,  and  the  subsequent 
Mandates  and  Similitudes  expounded  to  Hermas  by  an  angel  of  penance 
in  the  garb  of  a  Shepherd.  The  true  sign  of  demarcation  is  the  organ 
of  revelation,  first  the  Matron  and  then  the  Shepherd  (Sim.  ix.  i, 
i — 3).  It  is  the  prominence  of  the  latter  in  the  second  part  of  the  work 
that  justifies  its  peculiar  title.  It  is  true  that  he  also  appears  in  the 
first  part  of  the  book,  but  in  a  subordinate  role  and  not  in  the 
Shepherd's  guise  (cf.  Vis.  ii.  4,  i;  iii.  10,  7).  All  the  revelations 
made  to  Hermas  end  with  exhortations  to  penance,  directed  first  to 
himself  and  the  members  of  his  family,  then  to  the  Roman  Church, 
and  to  all  Christians.  This  call  to  the  penitential  life  is  justified 
throughout  by  the  imminent  persecutions  of  the  Church,  and  the  near 
coming  of  Christ  in  Judgment.  The  general  outline  of  the  work  is 
found  in  the  first  four  Visions.  The  Matron,  representative  of  the 
Church,  grows  constantly  younger,  until  she  appears  in  the  fourth 
Vision  as  a  bride  who  comes  forth  in  splendour  from  the  nuptial 
chamber.  Both  the  manner  of  the  Matron's  appearance,  and  the  re 
creations  and  instructions  that  she  gives,  exhibit  a  steady  progress 
of  penitential  exhortation.  The  third  Vision  is  by  far  the  most 
important.  It  presents  the  Communion  of  Saints,  i.  e.  those  who 
are  baptized  and  remain  faithful  to  the  grace  of  baptism,  whether 
yet  living  or  already  departed,  under  the  image  of  a  great  tower 
rising  from  the  water  and  built  of  square  and  shining  blocks.  Those 
who  through  sin  have  lost  their  baptismal  grace,  are  represented  by 
the  stones  that  lie  scattered  about,  and  which  must  be  trimmed  and 
polished  before  finding  a  place  in  the  tower.  The  Mandates  and 
Similitudes  to  which  the  fifth  Vision  serves  as  an  introduction  are 
destined  to  realize  and  explain  the  first  part  (cf.  Vis.  v.  5 ;  Sim.  ix. 
i,  i — 3).  The  Mandates  have  for  object  faith  in  one  God  (i),  simpli 
city  (ii),  truthfulness  (iii),  chastity  both  in  and  out  of  matrimony  (iv), 
mildness  and  patience  (v),  the  discernment  of  suggestions  made  by 


the  good  and  the  bad  angels  (vi),  fear  of  the  Lord  (vii),  temperance 
(viii),  confidence  in  God  (ix),  forbearance  from  sorrowfulness  (x), 
avoidance  of  false  prophets  (xi),  and  warfare  against  evil  desires  (xii). 
The  figurative  diction  of  the  Similitudes  recalls  the  Visions.  The 
first  is  a  warning  against  excessive  solicitude  for  temporal  goods; 
the  second  is  an  exhortation  to  charity;  the  third  and  fourth  exhibit 
good  and  evil,  dwelling  together  for  the  present,  to  be  separated  at 
the  end  of  time;  the  fifth  extols  the  merits  of  fasting;  the  sixth 
the  necessity  of  penance ;  the  seventh  explains  the  uses  of  tribulation ; 
in  the  eighth  and  the  ninth  the  branches  of  the  willow  tree  and  the 
stones  of  the  tower  serve  as  illustrations  of  the  truth  that  through 
penance  the  sinner  may  once  again  come  into  living  communion  with 
the  Church,  and  thereby  secure  a  place  in  the  glorified  Church  of 
the  future.  The  tenth  ends  with  these  words:  « Through  you  the 
building  of  the  tower  has  been  interrupted;  if  you  do  not  make 
haste  to  do  good,  the  tower  will  be  finished,  and  you  will  remain 
without»  (Sim.  x.  4,  4).  In  diction  and  exposition  the  book  is  diffuse 
and  minutely  circumstantial;  at  the  same  time  it  is  popular  and 
picturesque.  Its  chief  characteristic  is  its  apocalyptic  form  and  tone. 
The  dogmatic  interest  of  the  work  lies  chiefly  in  its  teaching  con 
cerning  the  possibility  of  forgiveness  of  mortal  sins,  notably  adultery 
and  apostasy  (cf.  Vis.  iii;  Sim.  viii — ix).  It  is  only  during  the 
period  of  grace  announced  by  him  that  the  Shepherd  admits  a  for 
giveness  of  sins  by  penance  (i^ru.voiav  ajuapucov,  Mand.  iv.  3,  3);  in 
all  future  time  there  shall  be  but  one  forgiveness  of  sins  through 
baptism  (IJLZTU.VOW.  /jtta,  Mand.  iv.  I,  8;  3,  6).  The  still  open  way  of 
penance  is  said  to  be  long  and  difficult  (Sim.  vi — viii).  The  Shepherd 
is  the  earliest  witness  to  the  « Stations »  or  degrees  of  penitential 
satisfaction  (Sim.  v,  I,  I.  2). 

2.  ITS  ORIGIN.  The  author  of  the  Shepherd  frequently  calls 
himself  Hermas  (Vis.  I.  I,  4;  2,  2),  nor  does  he  add  to  that  name 
anything  more  definite.  He  lived  in  very  modest  circumstances  at 
Rome  where  he  cultivated  a  field  in  the  vicinity  of  the  city  (Vis.  iii. 
i,  2;  iv.  i,  2).  It  was  there,  on  the  road  from  Rome  to  Cumse, 
that  he  received  the  revelations  of  the  Matron.  At  the  end  of  the 
second  Vision,  there  is  a  statement  of  especial  interest.  Hermas  is 
commissioned  by  the  Matron  to  make  known  her  revelations  to  all 
the  elect.  «Make  ready »,  she  says,  «two  copies,  and  send  one  to 
Clement,  and  one  to  Grapte.  Clement  will  send  it  (the  little  book) 
to  the  cities  that  are  without;  Grapte  will  instruct  the  widows  and 
the  orphans;  but  thou  wilt  read  it  in  this  city  to  the  priests  who 
are  placed  over  the  Church»  (Vis.  ii.  4,  3).  Grapte  seems  to  have 
been  a  deaconess.  Clement  is  represented  as  Pope;  he  is  the  head 
of  the  Roman  Church,  and  it  is  his  duty  to  conduct  its  communi 
cations  with  other  churches.  Hermas  is  certainly  speaking  of  Cle- 


ment  of  Rome  (§  8),  and  refers  very  probably  to  the  Letter  of 
Clement  to  the  Corinthians  that  was  highly  esteemed  by  the  primitive 
Christian  churches.  Hennas  presents  himself,  therefore,  as  a  con 
temporary  of  Clement.  Now,  the  author  of  the  Muratorian  Fragment 
says  (in  Zahn's  recension):  «Pastorem  vero  nuperrime  temporibus 
nostris  in  urbe  Roma  Hermas  conscripsit,  sedente  (in)  cathedra  urbis 
Romae  ecclesiae  Pio  episcopo  fratre  ejus;  et  ideo  legi  eum  quidem 
oportet,  se  publicare  vero  in  ecclesia  populo  neque  inter  prophetas 
completes  numero  neque  inter  apostolos  in  finem  temporum  potest. » 
However  difficult  and  obscure  these  words  may  be,  it  is  very  clear 
that  the  author  of  the  Fragment  wishes  to  exclude  the  Shepherd 
from  the  canon  of  biblical  writings,  because  he  is  no  other  than  the 
brother  of  Pope  Pius  I  (c.  140 — ^55).  Modern  critics  are  practically 
unanimous  in  agreeing  with  the  author  of  the  Fragment;  there  is, 
indeed ,  no  good  reason  for  rejecting  his  evidence.  It  is  true  that 
the  author  of  the  Shepherd  is  thereby  declared  guilty  of  a  deceit; 
he  was  not  a  contemporary  of  Clement,  for  he  did  not  write  his 
work  before  140 — 155.  That  the  Shepherd  was  written  about  the 
middle  of  the  second  century,  though  not  absolutely  certain,  is 
highly  probable,  and  certain  intrinsic  evidence  confirms  it.  The 
special  predilection  of  the  author  for  the  question  of  forgiveness  of 
mortal  sins,  and  his  diffuse  treatment  of  the  subject,  suggest  that 
he  was  aware  of  the  Montanist  movement,  at  least  in  its  beginnings. 
He  is  an  opponent  of  the  Gnostics  (Vis.  iii.  7,  I ;  Sim.  viii.  6,  5 ; 
ix.  22,  I  :  DiAovrsc,  Tidvra  ftvcocrxsw  xal  oudsv  0X0)0,  fwaHrxouffi).  The 
persecution  of  the  Christians  to  which  he  several  times  refers  as 
having  ceased,  cannot  be  that  of  Domitian  (81—96);  it  must  there 
fore  be  that  of  Trajan  (98 — 117).  The  subsequent  long  period  of 
peace,  during  which  the  zeal  of  many  Christians  grew  deplorably 
cold  (Vis.  ii.  2 — 3),  was  surely  the  reign  of  Antoninus  Pius  (138 — 161). 
Finally,  the  Christianity  to  which  Hermas  addresses  himself,  has  al 
ready  grown  old;  laxity  and  secularism  have  set  in;  it  is  clearly 
necessary  to  renew  ecclesiastical  discipline,  particularly  as  to  the 
restoration  of  apostates  to  the  communion  of  the  Church.  In  these 
dismal  traits  it  is  impossible  to  recognize  the  Church  of  the  first 
century.  Some  modern  scholars  have  denied  that  the  Shepherd  is 
from  the  hand  of  one  author.  De  Champagny  postulates  two,  Hilgen- 
feld  three;  their  hypotheses  have  found  few  followers.  The  constant 
similarity  of  style  and  vocabulary,  of  tendency  and  situation,  bears 
evidence  to  the  original  unity  of  the  work.  We  must  not,  however, 
look  on  it  as  composed  at  one  sitting;  rather  was  it  put  together 
piecemeal,  and  grew  to  its  present  size  by  the  gradual  juxtaposition 
of  smaller  writings  (Vis.  v.  5;  Sim.  ix.  i,  i  ff;  x.  I,  i).  Funk  has 
shown  that  there  is  no  foundation  for  Spitta's  imaginary  discovery 
of  a  Jewish  work  as  the  basis  of  the  Shepherd. 

§    II.      THE    SHEPHERD    OF    HERMAS.  4! 

3.-  HISTORY  OF  THE  WORK.  Irenaeus  introduces1  a  quotation 
from  the  Shepherd  with  the  significant  formula  sixey  '/]  TPa(P'^-  Cle- 
ment  of  Alexandria  made  considerable  use  of  the  work  and  seems 
to  have  appreciated  it  highly.  Origen  thought  the  author  identical 
with  the  Hermas  of  Romans  xvi.  14,  and  says  expressly  that  he  con 
siders  it  a  divinely  inspired  work2:  «quae  scriptura  valde  mihi  utilis 
videtur  et,  ut  puto,  divinitus  inspirata».  Yet  he  was  aware  that  it 
was  not  generally  admitted  as  such 3,  and  that  some  treated  it  with 
contempt 4.  Therefore,  he  adds  to  his  quotation  the  qualifying  phrase : 
«si  cui  tamen  scriptura  ilia  recipienda  videtur».  Even  in  the  fourth 
century  it  was  looked  on  in  Egypt  and  in  Palestine  as  a  manual 
quite  suited  to  the  instruction  of  the  catechumens 5.  Its  reputation 
passed  aw-ay  quicker  in  Italy  and  Africa.  In  the  former  country 
the  author  of  the  Muratorian  Fragment  is  very  positive  in  his  rejection 
of  it  (see  above  p.  38).  About  the  end  of  the  second  century,  it  must 
have  been  widely  held  in  the  Western  Church  that  the  work  had  no 
canonical  authority,  and  deserved  only  limited  confidence.  Only 
thus  can  wre  find  some  explanation  for  the  attitude  of  Tertullian  who 
held  the  Shepherd  to  be  «scriptura»  while  he  was  a  Catholic6,  but 
when  he  became  a  Montanist,  could  thus  address  Pope  Callixtus: 
«Cederem  tibi,  si  scriptura  Pastoris,  quae  sola  moechos  amat,  divino 
instrumento  meruisset  incidi,  si  non  ab  omni  concilio  ecclesiarum, 
etiam  vestrarum,  inter  apocrypha  et  falsa  iudicaretur. »  7  Thenceforward 
interest  in  the  Shepherd  dwindled  away  in  the  west,  and  it  passed 
so  thoroughly  out  of  general  use  that  St.  Jerome  could  say  that 
it  was  almost  unknown  among  the  Latins;  «apud  Latinos  paene 
ignotus  est»  8. 

4.  TEXT-TRADITION  AND  EDITIONS.  —  The  first  to  discover  a  codex  of 
the  Greek  text  of  the  Shepherd  was  the  well-known  forger  C.  Simonides 
(f  1867).  The  manuscript  was  discovered  by  him  at  Mount  Athos  and  dates 
from  the  fourteenth  or  fifteenth  century.  Three  folios  of  this  codex,  and  a 
very  untrustworthy  copy  of  the  remainder,  made  by  Simonides,  belong 
since  1856  to  the  University  of  Leipzig.  The  conclusion  of  the  \vork  is 
lacking  (Sim.  ix.  30,  3 — x.  4,  5).  This  manuscript,  or  rather  its  Lipsian 
copy,  was  edited  by  Tischendorf  in  Dressel's  edition  of  the  Apostolic 
Fathers  (Leipzig,  1857,  1863)  and  separately  ib.  1856.  (Simonides  had  sold 
to  the  Leipzig  Library,  not  a  correct  copy  of  the  manuscript,  but  one 
interpolated  by  himself,  with  the  help  of  an  old  Latin  version  of  the 
Shepherd  known  as  the  Vulgata,  and  some  quotations  from  the  Greek 
Fathers.  His  text  was  published  as  genuine,  Leipzig,  1856,  by  R.  Anger 
and  W.  Dindorf.  The  deceit  was  at  once  laid  bare ,  and  in  the  same 
year  the  Library  acquired  a  correct  copy  of  the  manuscript.)  The  Codex 
Sinaiticus  (§  7 ,  4)  contains  the  first  part  of  the  Shepherd  (about  one 

1  Adv.  haer.,   iv.   20,   2.  -  Comm.   in  Rom.,  x.   31. 

3  Comm.  in  Matth.,  xiv.   21.  4  De  principiis,   iv.    1 1. 

5  Athan.,  Ep.  fest.   39  an.   365  ;    Eus.,  Hist,   eccl.,  iii.   3,   6. 

6  De  oratione,   c.   16.  7  De  pudic.,  c.   10;  cf.   c.   20. 
8  De  viris  illustr.,   c.    10. 


fourth;  as  far  as  Mand.  iv.  3,  6).  With  the  aid  of  the  Leipzig  manuscript, 
the  Codex  Sinaiticus,  and  a  more  or  less  thorough  use  of  such  other 
helps  as  translations  and  citations,  several  editions  of  the  Shepherd  soon 
appeared:  Hilgenfeld,  Leipzig,  1866,  2.  ed.  1881 ;  v.  Gebhardt  and 
Harnack ,  Leipzig,  1877;  Punk,  Tubingen,  1878,  1887,  1901;  cf.  §  4. 
y.  Drdseke  published  in  Zeitschr.  fiir  wissenschaftl.  Theol.  (1887),  xxx. 
172 — 184,  the  conclusion  of  the  Shepherd,  from  Sim.  ix.  30,  3  to  the  end, 
in  a  Greek  text  that  was  based  on  a  work  of  Simonides:  'Opftooo'^ov  CEX- 
XTQVWV  deoXoftxal  ypacpa!  Tsssapsj,  London,  1859.  Hilgenfeld  soon  followed 
with  an  edition  of  the  entire  Greek  text,  Leipzig,  1887.  Unfortunately 
this  Greek  conclusion  of  the  Shepherd  is  a  forgery  of  Simonides,  as  Funk 
has  demonstrated  in  Theol.  Quartalschrift  (1888),  Ixx.  51 — 71.  A  more  exact 
knowledge  of  the  Athos  codex  can  be  found  in  Lambros  and  Robinson: 
A  collation  of  the  Athos  Codex  of  the  Shepherd  of  Hennas  by  Spyridion 
P.  Lambros;  translated  and  edited  by  J.  A.  Robinson,  Cambridge,  1888. 
Lambros  reproduced  two  pages  of  the  Codex,  in  Byzantinische  Zeitschrift 
(1893),  ii.  609  if.  Two  small  (very  imperfect)  fragments  of  the  Greek  text 
(Sim.  ii.  7,  10;  iv.  2 — 5)  are  preserved  in  a  papyrus-roll  belonging  to  the 
Berlin  Museum.  For  a  fac-simile  of  the  text  cf.  U.  Wilcken,  Tafeln  zur  alteren 
griechischen  Palaographie ,  Leipzig,  1891,  Plate  iii.  See  also  JDiels  and 
Harnack,  in  Sitzungsberichte  der  kgl.  preuft.  Akad.  d.  Wissensch.,  Berlin, 
1891,  427 — 431 ;  A.  Ehrhard,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1892),  Ixxiv,  294 — 303. 
Until  1856,  only  one  ancient  Latin  translation  was  known,  published  at 
Paris  in  1513  by  J.  Faber  Stapulensis.  It  is  usually  called  the  «Vul- 
gata»,  to  distinguish  it  from  the  one  mentioned  below.  The  last  edition  of 
it  was  published  by  Hilgenfeld,  Leipzig,  1873.  Its  numerous  codices  are 
described  by  v.  Gebhardt  and  Harnack  in  their  edition  of  the  Greek  text 
(Leipzig,  1877),  pp.  xiv — xxii;  cf.  H.Delehaye,  in  the  Bulletin  critique  (1894), 
pp.  14—16,  concerning  a  new  manuscript  of  the  same.  J.  van  den  Gheyn, 
Un  manuscrit  de  1'ancienne  version  latine  du  Pasteur  d'Hermas,  in  Museon, 
new  series  (1902),  iii.  274 — 277.  A  second  Latin  translation,  the  so-called 
«Palatina»,  was  published  by  Dressel'm  his  edition  of  the  Apostolic  Fathers, 
Leipzig,  1857  (1863),  from  a  Codex  Palatinus  mine  Vaticanus,  of  the  four 
teenth  century.  It  was  incorporated,  with  important  corrections,  in  Gebhardt 
and  Harnack 's  edition  of  the  Greek  text,  Leipzig,  1877.  As  to  the  text  of  this 
version  cf.  Funk,  in  Zeitschrift  fiir  die  6'sterreich.  Gymnasien  (1885),  xxxvi. 
245 — 249.  It  is  generally  admitted  that  the  Vulgata  version  dates  from  the 
second  century,  and  that  the  Palatina  was  made  with  the  aid  of  the  Vulgata 
in  the  fifth.  For  a  different  opinion  cf.  J.  Haussleiter ,  De  versionibus 
Pastoris  Hermae  latinis  (Diss.  inaug.),  Erlangen,  1884.  An  Ethiopic  trans 
lation  derived  from  the  Greek,  made  probably  in  the  sixth  century,  was 
published  by  A.  d'Abbadie,  Leipzig,  1860  (Abhandlungen  fiir  die  Kunde 
des  Morgenlandes,  ii.  i).  G.  H.  Schodde,  Herma  Nabi:  The  Ethiopic  version 
of  Pastor  Hermae  examined,  Leipzig,  1876  (Diss.  inaug.),  is  a  superficial 
and  unreliable  work. 

5.  RECENT  LITERATURE.  —  For  German  and  English  translations  of  the 
Shepherd,  cf.  §  4.  There  is  an  English  translation  by  Fr.  Crombie  in 
Ante-Nicene  Fathers  (Am.  ed.  1885),  ii.  323—435.  E.  Gadb,  Der  Hirt 
des  Hernias.  Ein  Beitrag  zur  Patristik,  Basel,  1866.  Th.  Zahn,  Der  Hirt 
des  Hermas  untersucht,  Gotha,  1868.  G.  Heyne,  Quo  tempore  Hermae 
Pastor  scriptus  sit  (Diss.  inaug.),  Regiomonti,  1872.  H.  M.  Th.  Behm, 
Uber  den  Verfasser  der  Schrift,  welche  den  Titel  «Hirt»  fiihrt,  Rostock, 
1876.  J.  Nirschl,  Der  Hirt  des  Hermas.  Eine  historisch-kritische  Unter- 
suchung,  Passau,  1879.  A-  Brilll ,  Der  Hirt  des  Hermas  nach  Ursprung 
und  Inhalt  untersucht,  Freiburg,  1882.  R.  Schenk,  Zum  ethischen  Lehr- 

§    12.      PAPIAS    OF    HIERAPOLIS.  43 

begriff  des  Hirten  des  Hermas  (Programm),  Aschersleben,  1886.  A.  Link, 
Christ!  Person  und  Werke  im  Hirten  des  Hermas  (Diss.  inaug.) ,  Mar 
burg,  1886.  Id. ,  Die  Einheit  des  Pastor  Hermae,  ib.,  1888.  P.  Baum- 
gartner ,  Die  Einheit  des  Hermas-Buches ,  Freiburg,  1889.  E.  Hilckstadt, 
Der  Lehrbegriff  des  Hirten.  Ein  Beitrag  zur  Dogrnengeschichte  des 
2.  Jahrh.,  Anklam,  1889.  C.  Taylor,  The  Witness  of  Hermas  to  the  Four 
Gospels,  London,  1892.  F.  Spitta,  Zur  Geschichte  und  Literatur  des  Ur- 
christentums.  Vol.  ii.  Der  Brief  des  Jakobus:  Studien  zum  Hirten  des 
Hermas,  Gottingen,  1896.  Against  Spitta  cf.  Funk,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr. 
(1899),  Ixxxi.  321 — 360.  D.  Volter,  Die  Visionen  des  Hermas,  die  Sibylle 
und  Clemens  von  Rom,  Berlin,  1900.  H.  A.  v.  Bakel ,  De  Compositie 
van  den  Pastor  Hermae  (Proefschrift) ,  Amsterdam,  1900  (the  latter  two 
maintain  with  Spitta  a  Jewish  basis  of  the  Shepherd).  U.  Benigni ,  II 
Pastore  di  Erma  e  1' ipercritica ,  in  Bessarione,  IV  (1899 — 19°°)>  v°l-  vl- 
pp.  233 — 248.  B.Heurtier,  Le  dogme  de  laTrinite  dans  1'epitre  de  S.  Clement 
de  Rome  et  le  Pasteur  d'Hermas,  Lyon,  1900.  J.  Reville,  La  valeur  du 
temoignage  historique  du  Pasteur  d'Hermas,  Paris,  1900.  A.  Stahl,  Patri- 
stische  Untersuchungen,  vol.  i. — iii.  Der  «Hirt»  des  Hermas,  Leipzig,  1901. 
P.  Batiffol,  Hermas  et  le  probleme  moral  au  second  siecle,  in  Revue  biblique 
(1901),  x.  337 — 351.  y.  Leipoldt,  Der  Hirt  des  Hermas  in  saidischer  Uber- 
setzung,  in  Berliner  Sitzungsberichte  (1903),  pp.  261 — 268.  J.  Benazech, 
Le  prophetisme  chretien,  depuis  les  origines  jusqu'au  «Pasteur»  d'Hermas 
(These),  Cahors,  1901.  Batiffol,  fitudes  d'histoire  et  de  theologie  positive, 
Paris,  1902,  pp.  45 — 68.  Funk,  Zum  Pastor  Herma,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr., 
(1903),  Ixxxv.  639- — 640.  The  Christology  of  Hermas  is  treated  by  Funk 
in  his  second  edition  (1901)  of  the  Apostolic  Fathers,  i.  cxxxix — CXLIII. 
V.  Schweitzer,  Der  Pastor  Hermae  und  die  Opera  supererogatoria,  in  Theol. 
Quartalschr.  (1904),  Ixxxvi.  539 — 556. 

§  12.     Papias  of  Hierapolis, 

Papias,  Bishop  of  Hierapolis,  «a  hearer»  of  the  Apostle  John  and 
friend  of  Polycarp  of  Smyrna  \  wrote,  apparently  about  130,  « Expla 
nations  of  the  sayings  of  the  Lord»  (AO^'KOV  xup'.axcov  i^r^ff^tQ)  in 
five  books  2.  Some  small  fragments  of  them  have  reached  us  through 
citations  and  narrations  of  later  writers  as  Irenseus  and  Eusebius. 
Prescinding  from  the  hypothesis  (postulated  by  the  opening  words  in 
Eusebius)3  that  these  sayings  were  taken  not  only  from  the  Gospel- 
text  but  also  from  oral  tradition,  the  character  of  the  work  cannot 
be  determined  with  certainty.  Eusebius  is  surely  wrong  when  from 
these  same  words  he  concludes,  against  Irenseus ,  that  Papias  did 
not  know  the  Apostles,  and  that  the  « presbyter*  John,  whose  con 
temporary  he  declares  himself  to  be,  was  another  than  the  Apostle 
John.  The  traditions  handed  down  by  Papias  concerning  the  origin 
of  the  first  two  Gospels  are  well-known  and  have  given  rise  to  much 
controversy4.  Eusebius  believed  Papias  to  be  a  man  of  very  limited 
mental  powers,  who  accepted  many  things  that  pertained  to  the 
domain  of  fable  (poftixwrspa) ,  especially  a  millenarian  reign  of  Christ 

1  Iren.,  Adv.  haer.,  v.   33,   4.  2  Eus.,  Hist,   eccl.,   iii.   39,    i. 

3  Ib.,   iii.   39,   3—4.  4  Ib.,  iii.   39,    15—16. 


on  earth  beginning  with  the  resurrection  of  the  just,  a  belief  that  he 
acquired  through  incapacity  to  comprehend  the  figurative  expressions 
of  the  apostolic  writers  1. 

For  the  latest  trace  of  the  work  of  Papias  cf.  G.  Bickell,  in  Zeitschrift 
fur  kath.  Theol.  (1879),  m'-  799 — 803.  The  fragments  of  Papias  may  be 
found  in  M.  J.  Routh ,  Reliquiae  sacrae,  2.  ed.  (Oxford,  1846 — 1848),  i. 
3 — 44  (Migne,  PG.,  v.  1255 — 1262);  Hilgenfeld,  in  Zeitschr.  fiir  wissenschaftl. 
Theol.  (1875),  xviii.  231 — 270;  Gebhardt  and  Harnack,  Earnabae  epist. 
(1878),  pp.  87 — 104;  Funk,  Opp.  Patrum  apostol.  (1881),  ii.  276 — 300. 
Cf.  Pitra,  Analecta  sacra  (1884),  ii.  155 — 161 ;  C.  de  Boor,  in  Texte  und 
Untersuchungen  (1888),  v.  2,  165 — 184;  E.  Preuschen,  Antilegomena  (Gieften, 
1901),  pp.  54 — 63.  The  English  translation  of  Roberts  and  Donaldson  is 
in  Ante-Nicene  Fathers  (Am.  ed.  1885),  i.  153 — 155.  —  Zahn,  Papias  von 
Hierapolis,  in  Theol.  Studien  und  Kritiken  (1866),  xxxix.  649 — 696.  Id., 
Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons,  i.  2,  849 — 903;  ii.  2,  790 — 797.  Id., 
Forschungen  zur  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons  (1900),  vi.  109 — 157. 
W.  Weiffenbach,  Das  Papias-Fragment  bei  Eusebius  (Kirchengeschichte,  iii. 
39,  3 — 4),  Giefien,  1874.  Id. ,  Die  Papias-Fragmente  liber  Markus  und 
Matthaus,  Berlin,  1878.  C.  L.  Leimbach,  Das  Papias-Fragment  (Bus.,  Hist, 
eccl.;  iii.  39,  3 — 4),  Gotha,  1875.  A.  Hilgenfeld,  Papias  von  Hierapolis 
und  die  neueste  Evangelienforschung,  in  Zeitschr.  fiir  wissenschaftl.  Theol. 
(1886),  xxix.  257 — 291.  A.  Baumstark,  Zwei  syrische  Papiaszitate,  in  Oriens 
Christianus  1902,  pp.  352 — 357.  Th.  Mommsen,  Papianisches,  in  Zeitschr. 
fiir  die  neutestamentl.  Wissenschaft  (1902),  iii.  156 — 159.  Ad.  Harnack, 
Pseudo-Papianisches,  ib.  pp.  159 — 166. 




§  13.     Preliminary  Observations. 

If  the  ecclesiastical  literature  of  the  second  century  wears  an  ex 
clusively  apologetic  air,  this  results,  quite  naturally,  from  the  circum 
stances  of  that  period.  «The  Christians  are  opposed  by  the  Jews  as 
strangers  (dXX6<pu)iot),  and  are  persecuted  by  the  heathens»2.  Calumnies 
of  every  kind  (concubitus  Oedipodei,  epulae  Thyesteae,  Onocoetes), 
and  the  ridicule  and  mockery  of  eminent  writers  like  Lucian  and 
Celsus,  prejudiced  and  irritated  public  opinion  against  the  Christians. 
The  mob  was  stirred  to  violent  outbreaks  of  hate  by  the  heathen 
priests,  magicians  of  every  kind,  and  Jews.  The  antique  state,  with 
whose  framework  polytheism  was  intimately  interwoven,  saw  itself 
daily  more  and  more  impelled  by  the  instinct  of  self-preservation  to 
undertake  a  campaign  of  extermination  against  the  Christians. 

It  was  amid  these  conditions  that  the  writings  of  the  Apologists 
arose.  It  is  true  that  they  are  also  more  or  less  positive  attacks 
on  heathenism,  in  so  far  as  they  employ  not  only  defensive  but  offen- 

1  Ib.,  iii.   39,    ii  — 13.  2  Ep.  ad  Diognetum,   5,    17. 

§    13-      PRELIMINARY    OBSERVATIONS.  45 

sive  weapons.  In  their  exposition  of  the  nature  and  contents  of  the 
Christian  religion,  they  generally  furnish  only  so  much  explanation 
as  seems  necessary  to  defend  themselves  from  the  calumnies  and  pre 
judices  of  their  opponents.  But  since  they  also  aim  at  setting  forth 
the  relations  of  Christianity  to  paganism,  and  appeal  frequently  to 
the  germs  of  truth  contained  in  the  latter,  they  offer  the  first  con 
tributions  to  the  establishment  of  an  harmonious  fusion  of  the  teachings 
of  reason  and  those  of  revelation;  thereby  they  prepared  the  way 
for  theology  or  the  science  of  faith.  Although  originally  addressed 
to  a  heathen  society,  it  was  in  Christian  circles  that  from  the  beginning 
the  apologists  sought  and  found  the  majority  of  their  readers.  For 
mally,  they  usually  imitate  contemporary  discourses,  such  as  were 
then  carefully  worked  out  according  to  the  rules  of  Greek  rhetoricians 
or  sophists,  \vhose  art  had  entered  upon  a  kind  of  renaissance  of  fame 
and  glory  in  the  century  of  Hadrian  and  the  Antonines. 

The  writings  directed  against  the  Jews  are  much  fewer  in  number. 
Those  that  have  reached  us  are  in  the  form  of  dialogues,  and  are 
less  intent  on  the  refutation  of  Jewish  accusations  against  the  Chris 
tians  than  on  the  confirmation  of  the  latter  in  their  conviction  that 
the  Law  of  Moses  had  only  a  temporary  purpose  and  authority.  The 
blossoms  of  the  Old  Law  had  reached  their  full  fruitage  in  the  New 

Complete  editions  of  the  Greek  Apologists  were  brought  out  by  F.  Morellus, 
Paris,  1615  (reprinted  Paris,  1636;  Cologne  1686);  the  Benedictine  Pru- 
dentius  Mar  anus,  Paris,  1742  (reprinted  Venice,  1747);  J.  C.  Th.  de  Otto, 
Corpus  apologetarum  christianorum  saec.  II,  9  voll. ,  Jenae,  1847 — 1872 
(the  first  five  volumes,  containing  the  works  of  St.  Justin  Martyr,  were  re- 
published  1876—1881).  The  text  of  the  Apologists  in  Gallandi,  Bibl.  vet. 
Patr.,  i. — ii.,  and  in  Migne,  PG.,  vi.,  is  taken  from  the  edition  of  Maranus. 
A  valuable  contribution  to  the  textual  criticism  of  these  writings,  from  the 
pen  of  J.  H.  Noltes,  is  found  in  Migne  (col.  1705 — 1816). 

Ad.  Harnack,  Die  Uberlieferung  der  griecmVchen  Apologeten  des  2.  Jahr- 
hunderts  in  der  alten  Kirche  und  im  Mittelalter,  in  Texte  und  Unter- 
suchungen,  etc.  (Leipzig,  1882),  i.  1—2.  O.  von  Gcbhardt,  Zur  handschrift- 
lichen  Uberlieferung  der  griechischen  Apologeten,  ib.  1883,  i.  3,  155 
to  196.  Harnack  and  von  Gebhardt  have  shown  that,  with  the  exception 
of  the  writings  of  St.  Justin,  the  three  books  of  Theophilus  ad  Autolycum, 
and  the  «Irrisio»  of  Hermias,  the  greater  part  of  the  manuscripts  of  the 
second  and  third  century  Greek  Apologists  that  have  reached  us  come 
down,  directly  or  indirectly,  from  one  (no  longer  perfect)  prototype,  the 
Arethas-Codex  of  the  Bibliotheque  Nationale  at  Paris  (cod.  Par.  gr.  451), 
written  in  the  year  914,  by  commission  of  Arethas,  bishop  of  Caesarea.  This 
discovery  has  opened  up  a  new  horizon  to  the  textual  criticism  of  the 
Apologies.  In  the  fourth  volume  of  the  Texte  und  Untersuchungen  (1888 
1891  1893)  are  to  be  found  editions  of  the  Apology  of  Tatian  by 
E.  Schwartz ,  of  the  writings  of  Athenagoras  by  the  same,  and  of  the 
"Apology  of  Aristides  by  E.  Hennecke.  --  J.  Donaldson,  A  Critical  History 
of  Christian  Literature  and  Doctrine  from  the  death  of  the  Apostles  to 
the  Nicene  Council,  vol.  ii.— iii,  The  Apologists,  London,  1866.  //.  Dem- 


bowski,  Die  Quell  en  der  christlichen  Apologetik  des  2.  Jahrhunderts,  Part  i: 
Die  Apologie  Tatians,  Leipzig,  1878.  G.  Schmitt,  Die  Apologie  der  drei 
ersten  Jahrhunderte  in  historisch-systematischer  Darstellung,  Mainz,  1890. 
y.  Zahn,  Die  apologetischen  Grundgedanken  in  der  Literatur  der  drei 
ersten  Jahrhunderte  systematisch  dargestellt,  Wiirzburg,  1890.  Cf.  R.  Ma 
riano,  Le  apologie  nei  primi  tre  secoli  della  Chiesa :  le  cagioni  e  gli  effetti, 
in  II  Cristianesimo  nei  primi  tre  secoli  (Scritti  vari,  v.),  Florence,  1902, 
pp.  7 — 83.  On  the  anti-Judaizing  literature  of  the  primitive  Church ,  cf. 
Harnack,  in  Texteund  Untersuchungen  (1883),  i.  3,  56 — 74;  A.  C.McGiffert, 
A  Dialogue  between  a  Christian  and  a  Jew,  New  York,  1889,  pp.  i — 47. 

§   14.      Quadratus. 

The  most  ancient  Apology  known  to  us  is  that  of  Quadratus, 
a  disciple  of  the  Apostles.  It  was  written  about  124,  and  was 
presented  to  the  Emperor  Hadrian  on  the  occasion  of  a  persecution 
of  the  Christians1.  Quadratus  is  rightly  identified  with  that  disciple 
of  the  Apostles  who  was  endowed  with  the  gift  of  prophecy  and  was, 
to  all  appearances,  a  resident  of  Asia  Minor 2.  St.  Jerome  errs  when 
he  identifies  him3  with  Quadratus,  bishop  of  Athens,  who  lived  in 
the  reign  of  Marcus  Aurelius  (161 — i8o)4.  The  sole  extant  fragment 
of  the  Apology  of  Quadratus  is  a  citation  in  Eusebius5. 

For  Quadratus  and  his  Apology  cf.  Routh,  Reliquiae  sacrae,  2.  ed.,  i. 
69 — 79;  de  Otto,  Corpus  apologetarum  christ.  (1872),  ix.  333 — 341.  See  also 
Th.  Zahn,  Forschungen  zur  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons,  etc.  (1900), 
vi.  41 — 53;  Funk,  Patres  App.  i.  376;  Harnack ,  Gesch.  der  altchristl. 
Literatur,  i.  95  f. ;  ii.  i,  269 — 271 ;  Bardenhewer  in  Kirchenlexikon  viWetzer 
and  Welte,  2.  ed.,  x.  645—647. 

§   15.     Aristides  of  Athens. 

Until  1878  the  Apology  of  Aristides  of  Athens  mentioned  by  Eu 
sebius6  was  looked  upon  as  hopelessly  lost.  In  that  year  the  Mechi- 
tarists  of  San  Lazzaro  (near  Venice)  published  a  fragment  of  an  Ar 
menian  translation  of  the  same.  In  1891  a  complete  Syriac  trans 
lation  was  made  known  by  Rendel  Harris;  contemporaneously  a 
Greek  revision  of  the  text  was  edited  by  Armitage  Robinson.  The 
latter  text,  which  has  reached  us  in  the  seventh-century  romance 
of  Barlaam  and  Joasaph  (cc.  26 — 27) 7,  offers  many  corrections, 
especially  abridgments  of  the  original.  The  Syriac  translation  has 
been  accepted  as  a  faithful  and  reliable  witness  of  the  original  con 
cept  of  the  Apology.  The  Armenian  translation  was  also  made  from 
the  Greek,  although  it  deals  quite  freely  with  the  original,  as  may 

1  Ens.,  Chron.   ad  a.   Abrah.   2140:   Hist,   eccl.,   iv.   3,    I — 2. 
-  Ib.,  iii.   37,    i  ;  v.    17,   2. 

3  De  viris  illustr.,   c.    19:   Ep.    70  ad  Magnum,   c.   4. 

4  E^^s.,  Hist,   eccl.,   iv.   23,   3.  5  Ib.,   iv.   3,   2 

c  Chron.  ad  a.  Abrah.  2140:  Hist,  eccl.,  iv.  3,  3;  cf.  Hieron.,  De  viris  illustr., 
c.  20;  Ep.  70,  4. 

7  Migne,  PG.,  xcvi.    1108 — 1124. 

§15-     ARISTIDES    OF    ATHENS.  47 

be  seen  from  the  two  chapters  (i — 2)  of  the  preserved  fragment. 
From  the  inscription  of  the  Syriac  translation  it  seems  fairly  certain 
that  the  original  was  offered  to  the  Emperor  Antoninus  Pius  (138 — 161). 
Eusebius,  who  seems  not  to  have  read  it,  believed  that  the  Apology 
had  been  presented  to  Hadrian.  The  scope  of  the  work  is  to  prove 
that  the  Christians  alone  possess  the  true  knowledge  of  God.  After 
a  brief  exposition  of  the  idea  of  God,  as  it  is  forced  on  the  human 
mind  by  the  study  of  nature  (c.  i),  the  author  invites  the  Emperor 
to  look  out  upon  the  world  and  examine  the  faith  in  God  exhibited 
by  the  different  races  of  humanity,  Barbarians,  Greeks,  Jews,  and 
Christians  (c.  2).  The  Barbarians  adore  God  under  the  form  of 
perishable  and  changeable  elements  (cc.  3 — 7):  earth,  water,  fire, 
the  winds,  the  sun ;  the  Greeks  attribute  to  their  gods  their  own 
human  frailties  and  passions  (cc.  8 —  1 3) ;  the  Jews  believe  in  one  only 
God,  but  they  serve  angels  rather  than  Him  (c.  14).  The  Christians 
rejoice  in  the  possession  of  the  full  truth,  and  manifest  the  same  in 
their  lives  (cc.  15 — 17).  The  beautiful  and  highly  emotional  descrip 
tion  of  the  Christian  life  closes1  with  a  reference  to  their  « writings*. 
The  work  of  Aristides  offers  only  rare  echoes  of  the  biblical 
writings,  to  which  may  be  added  some  more  or  less  clear  traces  of 
the  Didache  (§  6)  and  of  the  Preaching  of  Peter  (§  30,  i).  Specific 
Christian  teachings  are  touched  on  very  slightly,  e.  g.  the  Incarnation 
of  the  Son  of  God  through  a  Hebrew  Virgin  (c.  2,  6)  and  the  Second 
Coming  of  Christ  in  Judgment  (c.  17,  8).  There  are  extant  in  Ar 
menian  two  other  fragments  that  bear  the  name  of  Aristides :  a  homily 
«on  the  appeal  of  the  (Good)  Thief  and  the  reply  of  the  Crucified 
One»  (Luke  xxiii.  42  f.),  and  some  lines  of  «a  Letter  to  all  philosophers 
by  the  philosopher  Aristides».  In  spite  of  the  favourable  opinion 
of  Zahn  and  Seeberg,  the  homily  is  not  to  be  accounted  authentic, 
while  the  pretended  epistolary  fragment  seems  no  more  than  an 
enlarged  citation  from  the  Apology. 

The  Armenian  fragment  of  the  Apology  and  the  Armenian  homily 
were  published  by  the  Mechitarists  under  the  title:  S.  Aristidis  philosophi 
Atheniensis  sermones  duo,  Venice,  1878.  Both  pieces  were  translated  into 
German  by  Fr.  Sasse,  in  Zeitschrift  fur  kath.  Theol.  (1879),  m'-  6l2 — 6l8 
(cf.  p.  816),  and  by  Fr.  v.Himpel,  in  Theol.  Qtiartalschr.  (1880),  Ixii.  109 — 127. 
A  new  edition  of  these  Armenian  texts,  including  the  fragment  of  the  Letter, 
was  brought  out  by  P.  Martin  in  Pitra,  Analecta  sacra,  torn,  iv.,  Paris,  1883, 
Armenian  text  pp.  6 — n,  Latin  translation  pp.  282 — 286;  cf.  Proleg. 
pp.  x — XT.  J.  Rendel  Harris  and  J.  Armitage  Robinson  published  the  Syriac 
version  of  the  Apology  from  a  codex  of  the  sixth  or  seventh  century,  found 
in  the  monastery  of  St.  Catharine  on  Mount  Sinai ,  also  the  Greek  re- 
cension,  in  Texts  and  Studies  edited  by  J.  A.  Robinson,  i.  i,  Cambridge 
1891,  1893.  From  another  manuscript  Harris  translated  into  English  (ib. 
pp.  29—33)  the  Armenian  fragment  of  the  Apology.  See  D.  M.  Kay, 
The  Apology  of  Aristides  the  Philosopher,  translated  from  the  Greek  and  from 

1  c.  16,  3,  5  ;  cf.   15,   i;   17,   i. 


the  Syriac  Version  in  Ante-Nicene  Fathers  (Am.  ed  1885),  ix.  263 — 279. 
German  translations  of  the  Syriac  version  were  made  by  R.  Raabe,  in  Texte 
imd  Untersuchungen  (Leipzig,  1892),  ix.  i,  and  by  J.  Schonf elder ,  in  Theol. 
Quartalschr.  (1892),  Ixxiv.  531 — 557.  Attempts  to  reconstruct  the  Greek 
original  of  the  Apology  have  been  made  by  R.  Seeberg,  in  Zahn's  Forschungen 
zur  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons  (Erlangen,  1893),  v.  159 — 414  (con 
tains  comprehensive  and  thorough  researches),  and  by  Hennecke,  in  Texte 
imd  Untersuchungen  (Leipzig,  1893),  iv.  3.  Cf.  Hennecke,  Zur  Frage  nach  der 
urspriinglichen  Textgestalt  der  Aristides-Apologie,  in  Zeitschrift  fur  wissen- 
schaftl.  Theol.  (1893),  ii.  42 — 126.  Seeberg  published,  Erlangen  1894,  a 
complete  edition  of  the  writings  of  Aristides.  L.  Lemme ,  Die  Apologie 
des  Aristides,  in  Neue  Jahrbiicher  fur  deutsche  Theol.  (1893),  ii.  303 — 340. 
F.  Lauchert,  Uber  die  Apologie  des  Aristides,  in  Internat.  Theol.  Zeitschrift 
(1894),  ii.  278 — 299.  P.  Fetter,  Aristides-Citate  in  der  armenischen  Literatur, 
in  Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1894),  Ixxvi.  529 — 539.  In  his  Forschungen  zur 
Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons  (Erlangen,  1893),  v.  415 — 437,  Zahn 
defends  the  authenticity  of  the  homily  and  the  fragment  of  the  Letter. 
P.  Pape,  in  Texte  und  Untersuchungen  (Leipzig,  1894),  xii.  2,  holds  both 
to  be  spurious. 

§   16.     Aristo  of  Pella. 

The  earliest  Christian  participant  in  the  literary  conflict  with 
Judaism  seems  to  have  been  Aristo  of  Pella  (a  town  of  the  Decapolis 
in  Palestine).  Between  135  and  175  he  published  a  small  treatise 
entitled  «A  Disputation  between  Jason  and  Papiscus  concerning  Christ » 
(Idaovoo,  xal  Hantcrxo'j  avrdofca  xspl  Xptaroo)  *.  In  this  work  Jason,  a 
Jewish  Christian,  proved  so  conclusively  the  fulfilment  of  the  Messianic 
prophecies  in  Jesus  of  Nazareth  that  his  opponent,  the  Jew  Papiscus, 
begged  to  be  baptized.  There  are  traces  in  Origen  (1.  c.)  of  the  con 
tents  of  the  work  (now  lost  to  us),  also  in  the  extant  introduction  or 
Epistola  nuncupatoria  of  an  ancient  Latin  translation  that  has  also 
perished2.  The  time  of  its  composition  may  be  approximately 
fixed:  Celsus  cites  it  (Origen  1.  c.)  in  his  work  against  the  Christians, 
written  about  178.  On  the  other  hand,  in  a  work  whose  title  and 
contents  are  unknown  to  us,  but  which  was  very  probably  our  Dia 
logue,  Aristo  of  Pella  makes  mention  of  the  issue  of  the  Barkochba 
rebellion  (132—135)8.  The  first  to  claim  this  work  for  Aristo  of 
Pella  was  Maximus  Confessor  *. 

The  «testimonia  antiquorum»  and  the  fragments  are  found  in  Routh, 
Reliquiae  sacrae,  i.  91—109;  de  Otto,  Corpus  apolog.  christ.,  ix.  349 
ad  363.  Cf.  Harnack,  Gesch.  der  altchristl.  Literatur,  i.  92—95  ;  ii.  i,  268  f. 
P.  Corssen  and  Th.  Zahn  treat  of  the  Dialogue  of  Aristo  in  their  re 
searches  on  the  sources  of  the  «Altercatio  Simonis  Judaei  et  Theophili  Chri- 
stiani»,  by  Evagrius,  in  which  text  Harnack  saw  (1883)  a  translation  or 
revision  of  the  Dialogue  of  Aristo;  cf.  §  96,  i.  In  two  Greek  dialogues  of 

1   Orig.,  Contra  Celsum,   iv.   52. 

-  Ad  Vigilium  episcopum  de  iudaica  incredulitate,  in  Opp.  S.  Cypr.  (ed.  Hartel], 
iii.  119 — 132. 

3  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,   iv.   6,   3. 

4  Scholia  in  Dion.  Arcop.,  De  myst.   theol.,  c.    I. 

§    17.     JUSTIN    MARTYR.  49 

the  fourth  or  fifth  century,  first  edited  by  him,  Conybeare  believes  that 
he  can  recognize  a  recension  of  the  work  of  Aristo :  Fr.  C.  Conybeare, 
The  Dialogues  of  Athanasius  and  Zachaeus  and  of  Timothy  and  Aquila, 
Oxford,  1898  (Anecd.  Oxon.,  classical  series,  viii).  For  the  text  of  the  latter 
dialogue  cf.  D.  Tamilia ,  De  Timothei  Christian!  et  Aquilae  ludaei  dia- 
logo,  Rome,  1901. 

§   17.    Justin  Martyr. 

1.  HIS  LIFE.  -  -  The  habitual  title  of  «philosophus  et  martyr »  was 
first  applied  to  Justin  by  Tertullian1.     He  calls   himself  «the  son  of 
Priscus,    the   son  of  Bacchius,    of  Flavia  Neapolis»  ,  i.  e.  the  ancient 
Sichem  (modern  Nablus)  in  Palestine2.     He  may  have  been  born  in 
the  first  decade  of  the  second  century;  his  parents  were  heathens3. 
He  relates   of  himself  that   in    his   youth   he   was    devoured    by  the 
thirst    of   knowledge    and    went    from    one    philosophical    school    to 
another,  visiting  in  turn  the  Stoics,  the  Peripatetics,  the  Pythagoreans, 
and  the  Platonists.    After  a  lengthy  stay  with  the  latter  he  eventually7 
found  in  Christianity  the  object  of  his  desires4.    His  conversion  took 
place  before  the  last  Jewish  War  (132 — 135),    perhaps  at  Ephesus5. 
As  a  Christian    he   clung   to  his  peripatetic    life,    continued   to   wear 
the  philosopher's  mantle  6,    and  defended  Christianity,  by  his  speech 
and  his  writings,  as  «the  only  reliable  and  serviceable  philosophy  7». 
He  spent   considerable   time  at  Rome,    founded  a  school   there,  and 
convicted    of   ignorance    the    philosopher   Crescens 8.      In    the    same 
city  most   probably  he  sealed    his   faith   with  his  blood.     According 
to  the  Acts  of  St.  Justin  his  death  took  place  under  Junius  Rusticus, 
Prefect  of  the  City,  between   163  and   167. 

C.  Semisch,  Justin  der  Martyrer.  Eine  kirchen-  und  dogmengeschicht- 
liche  Monographic,  Breslau,  1840 — 1842,  2  voll.  y.  C.  TJi.  Otto,  in  Encyclo 
pedia  of  Ersch  and  Gruber,  Sect,  ii.,  part  30,  Leipzig.  1853,  pp.  39 — 76. 
Ch.E.Freppel,  St.  Justin,  Paris,  1860,  3.  ed.  1886.  Th.  Zahn,  in  Zeitschr. 
fur  Kirchengesch.  (1885—1886),  viii.  37 — 66.  For  the  Acta  SS.  Justini  et 
sociorum  cf.  §  59,  4.  C.  Bertani ,  Vita  di  S.  Giustino,  Monza,  1902. 
A.  Z.  Feder  S.  J.,  Justins  des  Martyrers  Lehre  von  Jesus  Christus,  dem 
Messias  und  dem  menschgewordenen  Sohne  Gottes.  Eine  dogmen- 
geschichtliche  Monographic,  Freiburg,  1906. 

2.  ins  WRITINGS.  —  Justin  is  the  most  eminent  of  the  apologetic 
writers  of  the  second  century.     Indeed,  he  is  the  first  of  the  Fathers 
to  develop  a  comprehensive  literary  activity.     He  opposed  with  zeal 
not  only  heathenism,  but  also  Judaism  and  heresy.    The  manuscript- 
tradition  of  the  writings  he  has  bequeathed  us  exhibits  many  defects 
and  gaps.     Most  of  his  writings  are   lost,    while  many  writings  that 

1  Adv.   Valent.,   c.   5.  2  Apol.,   i.    I. 

3  Dial,   cum  Tryphone,   c.   28.  4  Ib.,   c.   2—8;   cf.  Apol.,   ii.    12. 

5  Dial,   cum  Tryph.,   c.    I    9  ;   cf.   Eus..  Hist,   eccl.,  iv.    18,   6. 
c  Ib.,   iv.    n,  8;   cf.  Just.,  Dial.   c.   I.  7  Dial.   c.   8. 

8  Acta  S.  Justini,   c.   3;   Eus.,  Hist,   eccl.,  iv.    ii,    ii;   Apol.,   ii.   3. 


falsely  bear  his  famous  name  have  been  preserved.  Only  three  of 
the  works  current  under  his  name  have  withstood  the  touchstone  of 
criticism :  the  two  Apologies,  and  the  Dialogue  with  the  Jew  Trypho. 

The  Arethas-Codex  (§  13)  contains  only  the  spurious  Epistola  ad  Zenam 
et  Serenum  (see  below  p.  54)  and  the  equally  spurious  Cohortatio  ad  Gen 
tiles  (p.  53).  Two  other  independent  collections  of  the  writings  of  Justin 
have  reached  us:  the  former  Codex  Argentorat.  9  (saec.  xiii.  or  xiv.) 
destroyed  in  the  siege  of  Strasburg  (1870),  and  the  (more  copious  but 
very  much  damaged)  Codex  Par.  450  (of  the  year  1364).  All  other 
copies  of  works  of  Justin,  in  so  far  as  they  have  been  studied ,  are  re 
ducible  to  these  three  manuscripts;  cf.  Harnack ,  Die  Uberlieferung  der 
griechischen  Apologeten  des  2.  Jahrh.  (§  13),  pp.  73  if.  The  first  editor 
of  the  works  of  Justin,  R.  Stephanus  (Paris,  1551),  followed  closely  the  text 
of  Cod.  Par.  450.  The  second  editor,  Fr.  Sylburg  (Heidelberg,  1593), 
changed  the  order  of  the  writings ,  and  added  to  them  the  Oratio  ad 
Gentiles  (p.  51)  and  the  Letter  to  Diognetus  (p.  52)  both  having  been 
in  the  meantime  made  known  to  the  learned  world  by  H.  Stephanus  (Paris, 
1592)  from  Cod.  Argent.  9.  The  reader  will  find,  in  §  13,  mention  of  the 
editions  of  Morellus,  Mar  anus  (Gallandi,  Migne),  and  de  Otto.  The  latter 
edition  appeared  at  Jena,  1842  —  1843,  in  three  octavo  volumes,  and  later,  as 
part  of  the  Corpus  apologetarum,  voll.  i — v.  1847  —  1850,  and  1876 — 1881. 

3.  THE  TWO  APOLOGIES.  -  -  In  the  Paris  Codex  (Gr.  450)  of  the 
year  1364,  on  wThich  is  based  the  text  of  the  two  Apologies,  the 
shorter,  now  known  as  the  second,  holds  the  first  place.  However, 
its  repeated  references  to  a  prior  Apology  (ii.  468)  show  that  it 
is  really  the  second.  —  Concerning  the  composition  of  the  first  Apo 
logy  there  has  been  no  little  discussion.  Wehofer  maintains  that  it 
is  an  oration  disposed  according  to  all  the  rules  of  contemporary 
rhetoric,  notwithstanding  an  occasional  wandering  from  the  theme.  Thus, 
there  is  a  prooemium  followed  by  a  propositio,  viz.,  that  the  name 
« Christian »  cannot  be  condemned,  since  no  evil  can  be  proved  against 
the  Christians  as  such.  In  the  first  part  of  the  dialogue  (cc.  4 — 13), 
the  refutatio,  the  author  combats  the  accusations  of  impiety  and  civil 
enmity.  In  the  second  part  (cc.  14 — 67),  the  probatio  proper,  he  main 
tains  that  Christ,  the  founder  of  the  Christian  doctrine,  is  the  Son  of 
God;  his  principal  arguments  are  drawn  from  the  Jewish  prophecies.  In 
the  peroratio  he  appeals  to  the  imperial  sense  of  justice  and  invokes  as 
an  example  the  edict  of  Hadrian  to  Minucius  Fundanus  concerning  the 
treatment  of  the  Christians  (c.  68).  Rauschen  denies  any  intentionally 
artistic  construction,  but  admits  a  division  into  two  parts.  The  first 
(cc.  4— 12)  is  chiefly  negative,  and  aims  at  rebutting  anti-Christian 
calumnies;  the  second  (cc.  13—67)  is  more  positive,  and  consists 
of  an  exposition  and  justification  of  the  contents  of  the  Christian 
religion.  We  learn  from  the  uncertain  and  obscure  inscription  of 
the  first  Apology  that  it  was  dedicated  to  Antoninus  Pius  (138 — 161), 
his  adoptive  sons  Marcus  Aurelius  and  Lucius  Verus,  the  Sacred 
Senate,  and  the  entire  Roman  people.  It  describes  as  a  philosopher 

§    1 7.      JUSTIN    MARTYR.  5  I 

and  a  « friend  of  knowledge »,  not  only  Marcus  Aurelius,  but  also 
Lucius  Vertis,  born  in  130.  It  would  seem  from  several  indications 
that  this  work  was  composed  between  150  and  155.  Thus  Marcion 
is  described  (cc.  26  58)  as  an  apostle  of  the  demon;  Felix  is 
mentioned  as  prefect  of  Egypt  (c.  29),  and  it  is  stated  (c.  46)  that 
Christ  was  born  one  hundred  and  fifty  years  ago. 

The  second  or  shorter  Apology  owed  its  origin  to  a  very  recent 
event  (%&eq  dk  xai  -pcor^  c.  i).  Three  Christians  had  been  put  to 
death  by  Urbicus,  the  Prefect  of  Rome,  merely  for  their  profession  of 
the  new  religion.  The  fact  is  related  by  Justin,  who  adds  to  his  story 
certain  paragraphs  of  an  apologetic  character,  and  concludes  by  asking 
the  Emperors  (c.  1 5  ;  cf.  c.  2)  to  publish  the  writer's  previous  Apo 
logy  and  to  command  the  observance  of  justice  in  dealing  with  the 
Christians.  It  has  been  found  impossible  to  discover  any  dominant 
idea  or  rhetorical  order  in  this  document,  which  is  certainly  no  more 
than  a  supplement  or  appendix  of  the  first  Apology,  written  also  very 
shortly  after  the  composition  of  that  work  (cf.  the  references  4  6  8). 
Urbicus  was  City-Prefect  between  144  and  160;  we  must  be  content 
for  the  present  with  this  approximate  knowledge,  it  is  impossible  to 
ascertain  the  exact  date. 

The  two  apologies  were  edited  separately  by  J.  W..J.  Brann,  Bonn, 
1830,  1860,  3.  ed.  by  JR.  Gutberlet,  Leipzig,  1883;  by  G.  Kriiger,  Freiburg, 
1891  (Sammlung  ausgewahlter  kirchen-  und  dogmengeschichtlicher  Quellen- 
schriften,  i.),  2.  ed.  1896.  German  translations  of  both  have  been  made  by 
P.  A.  Richard,  Kempten,  1871  (Bibl.  der  Kirchenvater),  and  H.  Veil,  Stras- 
burg,  1894  (with  explanatory  notes).  For  an  English  translation  see  Dods, 
Reith  and  Roberts,  in  Ante-Nicene  Fathers  (Am.  ed.  1885),  i.  163 — 302. 
For  the  date  of  composition  and  the  relations  between  the  two  apologies 
cf.  G.  Kriiger,  in  Jahrb.  fur  protest.  Theol.  (1890),  xvi.  579 — 593;  J.  A. 
Cramer,  in  Theol.  Studien  (1891),  Ixiv.  317—357,  401 — 436;  B.  Grundl, 
De  interpolationibus  ex  S.  Justini  phil.  et  mart.  Apologia  secunda  expungen- 
dis  (Progr.),  Augustae  Vindel. ,  1891.  The  hypercriticism  of  Grundl  is 
refuted  by  F.  Emmerich,  De  Justini  phil.  et  mart.  Apologia  altera  (Diss. 
inaug.),  Minister,  1896.  Th.  M.  Wehofer,  Die  Apologie  Justins  des  Phil, 
u.  Mart.,  in  literarhistorischer  Beziehung  zum  erstenmal  untersucht,  Rome, 
1897  (Romische  Quartalschrift,  Supplement  6).  G.  Rauschen,  Die  formale 
Seite  der  Apologien  Justins,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1899),  Ixxxi.  I88 — 206. 
A.  Lebentopulos ,  II  a  xal  (3'  'AroXoYia  UTilp  yptrrtavtov  'louativou  cpiXoso'^ou 
•/.at  [AdcpTUpo?  xal  6  xata  TkiAXi^vcov  AG^OC  'Aftavaariou  TOO  jisYaXou  (Dissert.), 
Erlangen,  1901. 

4.  THE  DIALOGUE  WITH  THE  JEW  TRYPHO.  This  work  too,  has 
come  down  to  us  only  in  the  Paris  Codex  of  1364,  and  is  moreover 
in  an  imperfect  state.  It  wants  the  introduction,  and  the  dedication 
to  a  certain  Marcus  Pompeius  (c.  141).  Also  from  chapter  74 
a  considerable  fragment  has  dropped  out.  The  work  sums  up  a 
disputation  held  at  Ephesus 1  (a  fact  very  probably  learned  by  Eusebius 

1  Eus.,  Hist,   eccl.,   iv.    18,   6. 



from  the  lost  introduction)  during  the  then  recent  Jewish  War  (132 
to  135:  Dial.  i.  9).  The  interlocutors  were  Justin  and  the  JewTrypho; 
the  dialogue  lasted  for  two  days,  and  it  is  supposed  that,  correspondingly, 
the  original  work  consisted  of  two  books.  With  an  artistic  skill,  that  Zahn 
has  finely  brought  out,  the  work  includes  both  truth  and  fiction ;  it  is 
in  part  made  up  of  real  discussions  between  Justin  and  learned  Jews, 
and  is  in  part  a  free  and  original  study.  It  is  quite  probable  that 
the  Trypho  who  represents  Judaism  is  none  other  than  the  celebrated 
contemporary  Rabbi  Tarpho.  In  the  introduction  (cc.  2—8)  Justin 
describes  the  genesis  of  his  own  philosophico-religious  opinions;  in 
the  first  part  (cc.  10 — 47)  he  proves  from  the  Old  Testament  that 
the  ritual  Law  of  Moses  has  been  abrogated  in  favour  of  the  new 
Law  of  Christ;  in  the  second  part  (cc.  48 — 108)  he  makes  it  clear 
from  the  prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament  that  the  adoration  of 
Jesus  does  not  conflict  with  the  fundamental  doctrine  of  Monotheism, 
the  adoration  of  the  God  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob ;  in  the  third 
part  (cc.  109 — 141),  he  seeks  to  prove  that  the  true  Israel  is  to  be 
found  in  all  those  who  have  accepted  Christianity,  since  the  days  of 
the  Apostles  at  Jerusalem ;  to  them  belong  the  promises  of  the  Old 
Covenant.  In  the  Dialogue  reference  is  made  to  the  first  Apology 
(c.  120);  it  must,  therefore,  have  been  composed  after  150 — 155. 
Th.  Zahn,  in  Zeitschr.  fiir  Kirchengesch.,  viii.  37 — 66. 

5.  LOST  WORKS  OF  JUSTIN.  In  the  Sacra  Parallela  of  St.  John 
Damascene  are  preserved  three  lengthy  fragments  of  a  work  of  Justin 
on  the  Resurrection  (xepi,),  in  which  are  refuted  Gnostic 
objections  against  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  and  the  proofs  and 
guaranties  of  this  ecclesiastical  doctrine  set  forth.  There  are  also 
other  fragments  bearing  the  name  of  Justin,  but  they  are  too  brief  and 
disconnected  to  permit  a  judgment  as  to  their  authenticity  and  right 
to  a  place  among  the  writings  of  Justin.  He  refers  himself  (Apol.  i.  26} 
to  a  previous  work  against  heretics  (aw-cawa  xara  xaffwv  TCOV  ^c- 
yqpivtov  alpsffeeavj  ;  as  to  its  content  we  are  reduced  to  conjectures 
based  on  other  statements  of  Justin  concerning  heretics.  St.  Irenseus 
knew  and  used  i  a  work  of  Justin  against  Marcion  (ffuvrar/jta  xpoQ  Map- 
xiotva) ;  according  to  some  it  was  a  fragment  of  the  above-cited  work, 
according  to  others  a  special  treatise.  Eusebius  2  is  the  earliest  witness 
to  the  authorship  of  the  following  writings:  a  Discourse  against  the 
Greeks  (MyoQ  TupoQ  "I'lMyyag)  «in  which  he  discusses  at  length  most  of 
the  matters  that  are  treated  by  us  and  by  the  Greek  philosophers,  and 
examines  carefully  the  nature  of  the  demons»;  another  work  addressed 
to  the  Greeks  under  the  title  « Refutation*  ftrepov  xpo^EUrpaq  o'jr 
~/pa/2aa,  ?,  xai  Ixifpwpsv  lter/w)\  a  work  on  the  unity  of  God  faspl 
povapxiag)  « based  not  only  on  our  own  writings  but  also  on 

1  Adv.  haer.,   iv.  6,   2.  *  Hist,   eccl.,  iv.    18,   3  ff. 

§    17.       JUSTIN    MARTYR.  53 

those  of  the  Greeks  »;  a  work  entitled  «  Psalter  »  ((paArr^)  ;  a  doctrinal 
treatise  on  the  soul  (ffjrohxnv  xspi  ^vyr^),  «in  which  he  describes 
various  researches  concerning  the  problem  of  the  soul  and  gives  the 
views  of  the  Greek  philosophers,  with  his  promise  to  refute  them  in 
another  work  wherein  his  own  views  shall  be  set  forth  ».  The  titles 
of  the  first  three  of  these  writings  are  identical  with  those  of  three 
works  preserved  in  the  manuscripts  of  the  writings  of  St.  Justin: 
Oratio  ad  Gentiles  (xpbc,  ^EXkqvaQ),  Cohortatio  ad  Gentiles  (MfOQ 
TrapawsTtxoQ  JtpoQ  "EXXr/vaQ),  and  De  monarchia  (rcep}  fteou  tiovapyiat;). 
The  five  short  chapters  of  the  Oratio  ad  Gentiles,  devoted  to  a  very 
energetic  and  efficient  refutation  of  the  unreasonable  and  immoral 
mythology  of  Homer  and  Hesiod,  cannot  be  attributed  to  Justin; 
the  style  of  the  work  differs  from  his  too  widely.  Yet  the  little 
treatise  may  possibly  belong  to  the  second  century.  At  a  later  date 
a  certain  Ambrosius  revised  it;  this  revision  has  reached  us  in  a  Syriac 
translation.  The  Cohortatio  ad  Gentiles,  a  work  in  38  chapters,  under 
takes  to  demonstrate,  in  an  elegant,  smooth  and  flowery  style, 
that  whatever  truth  is  found  in  the  writings  of  the  Greek  sages, 
poets  and  philosophers,  was  taken  by  them  from  the  sacred  books 
of  the  Jews.  Both  in  form  and  content  this  work  offers  a  striking 
contrast  to  the  genuine  writings  of  Justin.  Very  probably,  however, 
it  was  composed  at  the  end  of  the  second  or  the  beginning  of  the  third 
century,  though  at  present  opinions  differ  very  widely  as  to  its  origin. 
The  author  of  the  six  chapters  De  monarchia  undertakes  to  prove 
the  unity  of  God  and  the  inanity  of  the  gods,  mostly  by  forged 
citations  from  the  Greek  poets,  and  with  no  reference  to  the  Scrip 
tures.  As  the  work  is  apparently  complete  in  itself,  it  can  hardly  be  the 
second  part  of  the  homonymous  work  of  Justin  referred  to  by  Eusebius. 
Moreover,  its  diction  differs  notably  from  that  of  Justin.  Possibly 
these  three  works  were  erroneously  attributed  to  Justin  by  reason  of 
above-mentioned  statements  of  Eusebius.  Possibly,  too,  Eusebius  had 
before  him  works  that  wrongly  bore  the  name  of  Justin.  He  says, 
expressly,  that  apart  from  the  works  mentioned  by  him  «very  many 
other  works  »  circulated  under  the  name  of  Justin.  *.  St.  John  Da 
mascene,  Maximus  Confessor,  and  Photius  quote,  indeed,  still  other 
works  of  Justin,  but  the  sources  of  Christian  literary  tradition  were  by 
that  time  very  deeply  troubled  2. 

Fragments  that  seem  to  have  some  claim  to  authenticity  are  collected 
in  de  Otto,  Corpus  apolog.,  iii.  210  —  265.  On  the  fragments  of  De  resur- 
rectione  re-edited  by  K.  Holl  ,  in  Texte  und  Untersuchungen  (1899),  xx. 
36—49,  new  series,  v.  2,  see  Zahn,  in  Zeitschr.  fur  Kirchengesch.  ,  viii. 
20  —  37  i  W-  Bousset  y  Die  Evangeliencitate  Justins  des  Mart.,  Gottingen, 
1891,  pp.  123  —  127.  A  later  revision  of  the  Oratio  ad  Gentiles  was  edited, 

1  Hist,  eccl.,  iv.    18,   8. 

2  Sacra  Parallela  ;  Migne,  PG.,   xci.   280;  Bibl.   Cod.    125. 


in  Syriac  and  English,  from  a  seventh-century  manuscript  by  W.  Cureton, 
Spicilegium  Syriacum,  London,  1855,  pp.  38 — 42,  61 — 69.  In  Sitzungs- 
berichte  der  kgl.  preuft.  Akad.  der  Wissensch.,  Berlin,  1896,  pp.  627 — 646, 
Harnack  made  known  a  German  translation  of  the  Syriac  version,  by 
F.  Baethgen ,  and  added  the  original  text  of  the  Oratio,  with  corrections. 
The  author  of  the  Cohortatio  ad  Gentiles ,  according  to  E.  Schurer 
(Zeitschr.  fur  Kirchengesch.  [1877 — l878],  ii.  319 — 331)  borrowed  from  the 
«Chronography»  of  Julius  Africanus;  he,  therefore,  belongs  to  the  second 
quarter  of  the  third  century.  D.  Volter  on  the  contrary,  in  Zeitschr.  fiir 
wissensch.  Theol.  (1883),  xxvi.  180 — 215,  is  of  opinion  that  it  was  written 
about  1 80,  and  presumably  by  Apollinaris  of  Hierapolis.  J.  Draseke,  in 
Zeitschr.  fiir  Kirchengeschichte  (1884 — 1885),  vii.  257 — 302,  and  Texte  und 
Untersuchungen  (1892),  vii.  3 — 4,  83 — 99,  thinks  that  its  author  was  Apolli 
naris  of  Laodicea  (f  ca.  390),  and  that  its  original  title  was  u-sp  dX7}deiac  T, 
Xo-yoc  TcapaivsTtxoc  ~pos  "EXXrjvac.  This  line  of  thought  was  adopted  by  J.  R. 
Asmus ,  in  Zeitschr.  fiir  wissenschaftl.  Theol.  (1895),  xxxviii.  115 — 155; 
(1897),  xl.  268 — 284,  and  Zeitschr.  fiir  Kirchengesch.  (1895 — 1896),  xvi. 
45- — 71,  220 — 252  ;  he  contends  that  in  the  Cohortatio  Apollinaris  of  Laodicea 
is  attacking  the  infamous  scholastic  ordinance  of  Julian  the  Apostate,  made 
in  362 ;  in  turn,  the  Emperor  was  aiming  at  the  Cohortatio  in  his  work 
against  the  Christians.  A,  Puech,  in  Melanges,  Henri  Weil,  Paris,  1898, 
395 — 406,  places  the  date  of  the  Cohortatio  between  260  and  300.  W.  Wid- 
mann,  Die  Echtheit  der  Mahnrede  Justins  des  Martyrers  an  die  Heiden 
(Forschungen  zur  christl.  Literatur  und  Dogmengeschichte),  Mainz,  1902, 
iii.  i  (the  Cohortatio  is  a  genuine  work  of  Justin).  W.  Gaul,  Die  Ab- 
fassungsverhaltnisse  der  pseudo-justinischen  Cohortatio  ad  Graecos,  Berlin, 
1902.  For  false  accounts  of  the  discovery  of  the  work  of  Justin  on  the 
soul  (~spl  <!>o/rj?),  mentioned  by  Eusebius,  cf.  H.  Diels,  in  Sitzungsberichte 
der  kgl.  preuft.  Akad.  der  Wissensch,,  Berlin,  1891,  pp.  151 — 153. 

6.  SPURIOUS  WRITINGS.  Apart  from  the  three  works  mentioned 
above  (p.  52),  several  other  works  have  reached  us  that  are  erroneously 
ascribed  to  Justin.  We  shall  speak  in  §  22  of  the  Letter  to  Diognetus. 
The  Expositio  fidei  sen  De  Trinitate  is  a  doctrinal  exposition  of 
the  Trinity  and  of  Christology  that  has  reached  us  in  two  recensions 
of  unequal  length.  Funk  has  shown,  against  Draseke,  that  the  ori 
ginal  recension  is  the  longer  one,  and  that  it  belongs  to  the  fifth 
century,  not  to  the  time  of  Apollinaris  of  Laodicea.  There  exist  at 
present  some  fragments  of  a  revision  of  this  work  in  Syriac  and 
in  Old-Slavonic.  The  Epistola  ad  Zenam  et  Serenum  is  an  exhor 
tation  and  guide  to  Christian  asceticism;  according  to  a  conjecture 
of  Batiffol,  it  was  written  in  the  time  of  St.  John  Chrysostom  by 
Sisinnius,  the  Novatian  bishop  of  Constantinople.  The  Quaestiones 
et  responsiones  ad  orthodoxos,  a  collection  of  146  questions  and  answers 
of  a  miscellaneous  theological  nature,  are  a  work  of  the  fifth  century 
(cf.  Quaest.  71).  Of  the  same  date,  perhaps,  are  the  Quaestiones 
Christianorum  ad  Gentiles,  apologetical  studies  concerning  God  and 
His  relations  to  the  world,  and  the  Quaestiones  Gentilium  ad  Christi 
anas,  equally  metaphysical  and  theological  in  contents,  and  supposed 
to  be  from  the  same  hand.  The  Confutatio  dogniatum  quorundam 
Aristotelicorum  is  directed  chiefly  against  some  principles  of  Aristo- 

§    17.      JUSTIN    MARTYR.  55 

telian  physics.    There  are  also  a  few  other  small  fragments  of  works 
wrongly  attributed  to  St.  Justin. 

y.  Draseke  has  several  times  attempted  to  prove  that  the  short  recen 
sion  of  the  Expositio  fidei  is  a  work  of  Apollinaris  of  Laodicea,  in  Zeitschr. 
fur  Kirchengesch.  (1883  — 1884),  vi.  i — 45,  503  —  549;  also  Jahrb.  fiir 
protest.  Theol.  (1887),  xiii.  671  ff.  He  finally  edited  it  under  the  latter's 
name,  in  Texte  und  Untersuchungen,  vii.  3—4,  353 — 363,  cf.  158 — 182. 
The  thesis  is  utterly  untenable ;  as  Funk  has  shown,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr. 
(1896),  Ixxviii,  116 — 147,  224 — 250.  These  articles  are  reprinted  in  Funk, 
Kirchengeschichtl.  Abhandlungen  und  Untersuchungen  (1899),  ii.  253 — 291. 
In  Pitra's  Analecta  sacra,  iv.;  Paris,  1883,  P.  Martin  made  known  fragments 
of  a  Syriac  revision  of  the  Expositio  fidei  (Syriac  text,  pp.  n — 16,  and 
Latin  translation,  pp.  287—292).  For  the  Old-Slavonic  recension  of  the  same, 
cf.  N,  Bonwetsch,  in  Harnack,  Gesch.  der  altchristl.  Lit.,  i.  892  f.  For  the 
Epistola  ad  Zenam  et  Serenum  cf.  P.  Batiffol ,  in  Revue  Biblique  (1986), 
v.  114 — 122.  The  Quaestiones  et  responsa  ad  orthodoxos  were  edited  once 
more  by  A.  Papadopulos-Kerameus,  St.  Petersburg,  1895,  from  a  tenth-century 
codex,  in  which  they  are  attributed  to  Theodoret  of  Cyrus.  Cf.  on  them 
W.  Ga/3,  in  Zeitschr.  fiir  die  historische  Theologie  (1842),  xii.  4,  35 — 154. 
Draseke ',  in  Jahrb.  fiir  protest.  Theol.  (1884),  x.  347—352,  believes  that  there 
are  fragments  of  the  writings  of  Apollinaris  of  Laodicea  in  the  Fragmenta 
Pseudo-Justini  published  by  de  Otto,  Corpus  Apolog.,  v,  368 — 375.  A.  Harnack 
has  vindicated  for  Diodorus  of  Tarsus  the  authorship  of  the  «  Quaestiones  et 
responsiones  ad  orthodoxos »  ;  cf.  his  Diodor  von  Tarsus,  Vier  pseudojusti- 
nische  Schriften  als  Eigentum  Diodors  nachgewiesen  (Texte  und  Unter 
suchungen,  new  series,  vi.  v),  Leipzig,  1901.  This  work  contains  a  German 
version  of  the  first  three  writings  and  of  the  more  important  portions  of  the 
fourth:  Quaestiones  et  responsiones  ad  orthodoxos,  Quaestiones  Gentilium  ad 
Christianos,  Quaestiones  Christianorum  ad  Gentiles,  and  Confutatio  dogmatum 
Aristotelis.  If  Harnack' s  arguments  do  not  furnish  a  splendid  and  ir 
refutable  demonstration,  as  F.  Diekamp  thinks,  in  Theologische  Revue  (1902), 
i.  53,  they  create  at  least  a  very  strong  probability  in  favour  of  Diodorus 
of  Tarsus.  Funk ,  Le  pseudo-Justin  et  Diodore  de  Tarse,  in  Revue  d'his- 
toire  eccle'siastique  (1902),  iii.  947 — 971,  thinks  that  the  «Quaestiones  et 
responsa »  attributed  by  Harnack  to  Diodorus  are  not  earlier  than  the 
middle  of  the  fifth  century.  The  statement  which  ascribes  them  to  Theo 
doret  of  Cyrus  needs  closer  investigation. 

7.  THE  AUTHENTIC  WRITINGS  OF  JUSTIN.  The  notable  dis 
agreement  concerning  the  contents  and  structure  of  his  writings  is  owing, 
in  part  at  least,  to  a  peculiar  defect  in  the  same:  there  is  wanting  in 
them  an  orderly  movement  of  thought.  Justin  is  an  impressionist. 
He  rarely  tarries  long  enough  to  exhaust  an  idea,  preferring  to  take 
up  other  threads  before  returning  to  his  original  theme.  Thus,  cor 
related  subjects  are  scattered,  and  ideas  which  have  little  mutual 
affinity  are  brought  together.  Moreover,  he  pays  slight  attention  to 
beauty  of  diction.  His  writings  abound  in  solecisms  and  neologisms  ; 
he  delights  in  long  periods  and  frequent  participial  construction;  at 
times  he  falls  into  a  rigid  monotony  that  is  positively  fatiguing. 
At  times,  however,  especially  in  dialogue,  his  diction  takes  on  more 
life,  exhibits  a  certain  power  and  emotion,  and  even  rises  to  a  certain 


sublimity.  As  already  indicated  (p.  49),  Justin  continued  to  follow, 
after  his  conversion,  the  profession  of  philosopher.  He  is  the  first,  and 
among  the  most  eminent,  of  those  Fathers  who  undertook  to  bring  about 
a  reconciliation  between  Christianity  and  pagan  science.  At  the  same 
time,  it  is  only  by  a  partisan  distortion  of  his  teaching  that  some  modern 
writers,  like  Aube  and  von  Engelhardt,  find  in  it  a  strange  mixture 
of  Christian  and  pagan-philosophical  elements,  to  which  Platonism 
rather  than  Christianity,  has  lent  both  form  and  colouring.  Justin  is 
a  Christian  philosopher,  thoroughly  conscious  that  with  his  faith  in  the 
Son  of  God  he  has  entered  a  new  sphere  of  truth,  has  come  to 
possess  the  fulness  of  truth.  For  him  Christianity  is  the  rule  by 
which  he  measures  the  data  of  philosophy;  it  is,  m  all  simplicity, 
the  truth  itself;  hence  in  turn  all  truth  is  Christian  (Apol.  ii.  13). 
The  same  Word  (Logos)  who  was  manifested  fully  in  Christ,  is 
germinally  (as  Aofoq  a^spfjLartxoq)  in  every  human  soul.  In  the  measure 
of  their  participation  in  this  Word  of  God,  the  philosophers  and  poets 
of  antiquity  were  able  to  know  the  truth  (Apol.  ii.  8,  13).  All  those 
who  have  lived  with  the  Word  (o\  fjLzra.  Myou  ftiwffayreQJ  were 
Christian,  even  though  they  were  held  to  be  atheists;  such  e.  g.  were 
Socrates,  Heraclitus,  and  their  peers  among  the  Greeks;  Abraham, 
Ananias,  Azarias,  Misael,  Elias,  and  many  others  among  the  Barbarians 
(Apol.  i.  46).  It  is  through  the  Old  Testament  that  other  germs  of 
truth  (ffTtipfj-ara  d/^ttziacj  were  made  known  to  the  Greeks.  Plato 
borrowed  from  Moses  the  doctrine  of  moral  freedom ;  similarly  it  was 
from  the  Hebrew  prophets  that  the  Greek  writers  obtained  such 
knowledge  as  they  had  concerning  the  immortality  of  the  soul, 
future  retribution,  heaven,  and  the  like  (Apol.  i.  44).  Thereby  the 
relation  of  pagan  culture  to  Christianity  was  at  least  distinctly  out 
lined.  The  faith  of  Christians,  according  to  Justin,  is  found  in  the  books 
of  the  Old  Testament,  particularly  in  the  prophets :  their  words  are  for 
him  the  words  of  God,  or  the  Logos,  or  the  Holy  Spirit  (Apol.  i.  33 
36  61).  The  Gospels  he  cites  usually  as  «memoirs  of  the  Apostles» 
(dxofjtv/jfjioyzufjLaTa  ~cov  &7toor(')hov) ;  thereby  he,  at  least,  suggests  that 
Christians  held  them  for  inspired  and  canonical  books  (dyafwatcrxsTai 
Apol.  i.  67 ;  -(•iypa.-Ta.i  Dial.  c.  49).  The  Apocalypse  is  declareo^to  be 
a  divinely  revealed  book  and  written  by  the  Apostle  John  (Dial.  c.  Si). 
There  are  also  in  Justin  echoes  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  of  all 
the  Pauline  Epistles  (excepting  the  Epistle  to  Philemon) ,  of  the 
Epistle  of  St.  James,  the  two  Epistles  of  St.  Peter,  and  the  first 
Epistle  of  St.  John.  The  account  of  Christian  liturgical  customs 
furnished  by  Justin  (Apol.  i.  61  ff.)  is  of  very  great  importance;  he 
oversteps  in  these  paragraphs  the  limits  of  the  Discipline  of  the  Secret, 
and  describes  with  much  detail  both  baptism  and  the  celebration  of  the 
Eucharist.  No  other  Christian  apologist  imitated  him  in  this  disclosure 
of  the  greatest  of  Christian  mysteries. 

§    1 8.       TATIAN    THE    ASSYRIAN.  57 

B.  Aube,  Essai  de  critique  religieuse.  De  1'apologe'tique  chretienne  ail 
IIe  siecle.  St.  Justin  phil.  et  mart.,  Paris,  1861,  1875.  £*•  Weizsacker,  Die 
Theologie  des  Martyrers  Justinus,  in  Jahrb.  fiir  deutsche  Theol.  (1867),  xii. 
60 — 119.  M.  v,  Engelhardt,  Das  Christentum  Justins  des  Martyrers.  Eine 
Untersuchung  liber  die  Anfange  der  katholischen  Glaubenslehre.  Erlangen, 
1878.  Cf.,  against  Engelhardt,  A.  Stahlin ,  Justin  der  Martyrer  und  sein 
neuester  Beurteiler,  Leipzig,  1880.  J.  Sprinzl,  Die  Theologie  des  hi.  Ju 
stinus  des  Martyrers.  Eine  dogmengeschichtl.  Studie,  in  Theol.-prakt.  Quartal- 
schrift  (1884 — 1886).  C.  Clemen,  Die  religionsphilosophische  Bedeutung 
des  stoisch-christlichen  Eudamonismus  in  Justins  Apologie,  Studien  und 
Vorarbeiten,  Leipzig,  1890.  F.  Bosse ,  Der  praexistente  Christus  des  Ju 
stinus  Martyr,  eine  Episode  aus  der  Geschichte  des  christologischen  Dogmas 
(Dissert,  inaug.),  Greifswald,  1891.  W.  Flemming,  Zur  Beurteilung  des  Christen- 
tums  Justins  des  Martyrers,  Leipzig,  1893.  K.  L.  Grube,  Darlegung  der 
hermeneutischen  Grundsatze  Justins  des  Martyrers  (reprinted  from  Katholik), 
Mainz,  1880.  Th.  ZaJin ,  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons  (1889),  i.  2, 
463 — 585:  «Justinus  Martyr  und  die  Apostolischen  Schriften».  W.  Bousset, 
Die  Evangeliencitate  Justins  des  Martyrers  in  ihrem  Wert  fiir  die  Evangelien- 
kritik  von  neuem  untersucht,  Gottingen,  1891.  A.  Baldus,  Das  Verhaltnis 
Justins  des  Martyrers  zu  unseren  synoptischen  Evangelien,  Miinster,  1895. 
W.  Bornemann ,  Das  Taufsymbol  Justins  des  Martyrers,  in  Zeitschr.  fiir 
Kirchengesch.  (1878 — 1879),  iii.  1—27.  J.  Wilpert,  Fractio  panis,  Freiburg, 
1895,  PP-  42~65 :  «Die  eucharistische  Feier  zur  Zeit  des  hi.  Justinus 
Martyr».  The  extraordinary  assertion  ofHarnack,  in  Texte  und  Untersuch. 
(1891),  vii.  2,  115  — 144,  that  Justin  taught  bread  and  water  to  be  the 
«matter»  of  the  Blessed  Eucharist  has  met  with  no  acceptance.  Cf.  Th.  Zahn, 
Brot  undWein  im  Abendmahl  der  alten  Kirche,  Erlangen  and  Leipzig,  1892; 
Funk,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1892),  Ixxiv.  643 — 659,  and  again  in  Kirchen- 
geschichtl.  Abhandl.  und  Untersuch.  (1897),  i.  278 — 292;  A.  Jiilichcr ,  in 
Theol.  Abhandl.  C.  v.  Weizsacker  gewidmet,  Freiburg,  1892,  pp.  215 — 250. 
E.  Lippelt ,  Quae  fuerint  Justini  martyris  i^OfiyTjuoveujj-aTa  quaque  ratione 
cum  forma  Evangeliorum  syro-latina  consenserint  (Diss.),  Halle,  1901.  J.  A. 
Cramer,  Die  Logosstellen  in  Justins  Apologie  kritisch  untersucht,  in  Zeit- 
schrift  fiir  die  neutestamentl.  Wissensch.  (1901),  ii.  300—338.  Cramer 
maintains  that  the  passages  relative  to  the  Logos  are  not  from  the  pen 
of  Justin,  but  were  interpolated  through  the  combination  of  the  Apology 
with  a  Judseo-Christian  work  of  Alexandrine  origin.  Id.,  De  Logosleer 
in  de  Pleitreden  von  Justins,  in  Theol.  Tijdsscrift  (1902),  xxxvi.  114  —  159. 
W.  Liese ,  Justinus  Martyr  in  seiner  Stellung  zum  Glauben  und  zur  Philo 
sophic,  in  Zeitschr.  fur  kath.  Theol.  (1902),  xxvi.  560—570. 

§   18.     Tatian  the  Assyrian. 

I.  HIS  LIFE.  -  Tatian,  «born  in  the  land  of  the  Assyrians »,  be 
longs  to  the  Syrian  race.  He  had  travelled  extensively,  and  had 
earned  the  reputation  of  a  philosopher  and  a  writer,  before  he  became 
a  Christian  at  Rome.  This  must  have  taken  place  previous  to  the  death 
of  Justin  (163 — 167).  Irenaeus  is  witness  that  Tatian  was  a  « hearer » 
of  Justin,  and  belonged  to  the  Christian  community  at  Rome  until 
the  latter's  death.  Later,  probably  in  172,  Tatian  abandoned  the 
Church,  joined  the  Gnostics,  more  particularly  the  Encratites,  and 
returned  to  the  East.  Antioch  (Syria),  Cilicia,  and  Pisidia  are 


mentioned   as    the  scenes  of  his   activity.     We  are  quite  ignorant  of 
the  time  and  place  of  his  death1. 

H.  A.  Daniel,  Tatianus  der  Apologet,  Halle,  1837.  Th.  Zahn,  Tatians 
Diatessaron,  in  Forschungen  zur  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons,  Er- 
langen,  1881,  i.  268  ff.  Ad.  Harnack,  Die  Uberlieferung  der  griechischen 
Apologeten  (cf.  §  13),  pp.  196 — 232.  In  his  Gesch.  der  altchristl.  Lite- 
ratur,  ii.  i,  284  ff.,  Harnack  has  more  or  less  completely  withdrawn  his 
earlier  views  concerning  the  date  of  Tatian.  F.  X.  Funk,  Zur  Chronologic 
Tatians,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1883),  Ixv.  219 — 233,  and  again  in  his 
Kirchengeschichtl.  Abhandlungen  und  Untersuchungen  (1899),  ii.  142 — 152 e 

2.  THE  APOLOGY.  —  Only  one  work  of  Tatian  has  been  preserved, 
an  Apology  for  Christianity  or  rather  a  criticism  of  Hellenism,  entitled 
IIpoQ<;  (Oratio  ad  Graecos).  It  begins  brusquely  with  a  re 
futation  of  the  prejudices  of  the  Greeks  (cc.  i — 4),  and  proceeds  to 
establish  two  lines  of  argument  in  favour  of  Christianity :  its  sublime 
doctrine  (cc.  4 — 31),  and  its  very  great  antiquity  (cc.  31 — 41).  In 
the  first  part  he  combines  with  his  exposition  of  Christian  teaching 
concerning  God  and  the  world,  sin  and  redemption,  a  satire  of  the 
opposite  errors  of  the  Greeks;  at  the  end  (cc.  22  —  29)  he  quite  gives  up 
the  role  of  an  apologist  to  enter  upon  that  of  a  polemical  writer. 
The  second  part  of  his  work  is  devoted  to  proving  that,  though 
Homer  marks  the  beginnings  of  Greek  civilization,  art,  and  science, 
Moses  antedates  him  by  four  hundred  years.  Therefore,  even  those 
«wise  men»  of  Greece  who  preceded  Homer  are  more  modern  than 
Moses.  As  a  disciple  of  Justin  his  apologetic  coincides  in  many  points 
with  that  of  his  master,  while  in  other  points  there  is  a  notable  dif 
ference.  Justin  treats  the  thinkers  and  poets  of  Greece  with  great 
respect ;  his  disciple  Tatian  goes  out  of  his  way  to  belittle  and  insult 
them.  He  abounds  in  bitter  and  excessive  denunciation,  and  ignores 
entirely  all  the  praiseworthy  features  of  Greek  culture.  In  his  Apology 
there  is  revealed,  even  more  clearly  than  in  his  own  career,  a  character 
harsh  and  passionate,  and  inclined  to  extreme  measures.  His  style, 
likewise,  is  generally  rough  and  disjointed,  though  occasionally,  owing 
to  the  strength  and  ardour  of  his  conviction,  it  assumes  a  poetic  lofti 
ness.  The  purpose  of  his  Apology  was  to  justify  his  conversion  to  Chris 
tianity,  shortly  after  which  event  it  was  published,  probably  outside 
Rome  (c.  35),  and  about  165,  when  Justin  had  already  passed  away 
(cc.  1 8.  19).  His  doctrinal  thought  is  markedly  influenced  by  Stoicism; 
it  also  abounds  in  phrases  and  turns  of  expression  capable  of  being 
interpreted  as  contrary  to  the  doctrines  of  the  Church.  Christ,  how 
ever,  is  emphatically  declared  to  be  God  (cc.  13  21).  In  a  very 
difficult  passage  however  (c.  5)  on  the  procession  of  the  Word,  he 
clearly  teaches  subordinationism. 

1   Tat.,    Orat,   cc.    I    42   29   35;     Clem.   Al. ,    Strom.,    iii.    12,   81  ;     Epipti.,  Haer., 
xlvi.   i;  Iren.,  Adv.  haer.,  i.   28,    i;  Eus.,  Chron.   ad  a.   Abraham  2188. 

§    1 8.       TATIAN    THE    ASSYRIAN.  59 

We  owe  the  preservation  of  the  Apology  to  the  Arethas-Codex  (§  13). 
Unfortunately  the  quaternions  of  this  codex  which  contained  it  were  torn 
out  between  the  twelfth  and  the  fourteenth  century ;  in  their  place  we  only 
have  three  copies  of  the  codex  made  in  the  eleventh  and  twelfth  centuries. 
The  editio  princeps  is  that  of  J.  Frisius  (C.  Gessner),  Zurich,  1546.  On  the 
editions  viMorellus,  Maranus  (Gallandi,  Migne~),  de  Otto  (Corpus  apolog.  vi.), 
cf.  §  13.  The  most  recent  edition  is  that  of  Ed.  Schwartz  (Texte  und  Unter- 
suchungen,  iv.  i),  Leipzig,  1888.  Recent  German  versions  are  those  of 
F.  Grone,  Kempten,  1872  (Bibl.  der  Kirchenvater),  and  of  Harnack  in  a 
Programme  of  the  University  of  Gieften  (Aug.  25.,  1884).  There  is  an  English 
translation  of  the  Oratio  by  J.  E.  Ryland  in  Ante-Nicene  Fathers  (Am. 
ed.  1885),  ii.  65 — 83.  G.  Dembowski,  Die  Quellen  der  christl.  Apologetik 
des  2.  Jahrh.,  part  I:  Die  Apologie  Tatians,  Leipzig,  1878.  B.  Ponschab, 
Tatians  Rede  an  die  Griechen  (Progr.),  Metten,  1895.  R.  C.  Kukida, 
Tatians  sog.  Apologie,  Leipzig,  1900.  P.  Fiebig,  in  Zeitschr.  fur  Kirchen- 
geschichte  (1901),  xxi.  149  —  159.  W.  Steuer,  Die  Gottes-  und  Logoslehre 
des  Tatian,  Giitersloh,  1893.  A.  Kalkmann,  Tatians  Nachrichten  iiber  Kunst- 
werke,  in  Rheinisches  Museum  fur  Philol.,  new  series  (1887),  xlii.  489 — 524. 
R.  Kukula ,  Altersbeweis  und  Kiinstlerkatalog  in  Tatians  Rede  an  die 
Griechen  (Progr.),  Wien,  1900.  A.  Puech,  Recherches  sur  le  discours  aux 
Grecs  de  Tatien  suivies  d'une  traduction  du  discours,  avec  notes,  Paris,  1903. 
If.  U.  Meyboom,  Tatianus  en  zijne  Apologie,  in  Theol.  Tijdschrift  (1903), 
xxxvii.  193 — 247. 

3.  THE  DIATESSARON.  —  There  is  extant,  at  least  in  fragments, 
a  second  work  of  Tatian,  the  so-called  Diatessaron.  It  was  a  Gospel- 
harmony,  or  story  of  the  life  and  works  of  Our  Lord  compiled  from 
the  four  canonical  Gospels.  The  Greeks  1  called  it  TO  dia  reaadpcov 
eua'jr'jrl/^o^j  by  the  Syrians  it  was  entitled  the  «Evangelion  da  Mephar- 
reshe»  2.  Its  chronology  was  framed  on  that  of  the  fourth  Gospel,  the 
first  verses  of  which  served  as  an  introduction.  The  genealogies  were 
left  out3,  and  in  their  place  a  few  apocryphal  additions  were  inserted. 
This  work  is  an  important  witness  to  the  authority  of  the  four  canonical 
Gospels,  and  was  composed  by  Tatian  in  the  last  years  of  his  life,  after 
his  apostasy,  probably  not  in  Greek  but  in  Syriac,  though  it  was  based 
on  the  Greek  text  of  the  Gospels.  During  the  whole  third  century,  this 
harmony  was  the  only  Gospel  text  in  use  throughout  many  Christian 
communities  of  Syria,  particularly  at  Edessa.  It  was  only  after  the 
middle  of  the  fourth  century  that  the  «Gospel  of  the  Mixed»  gradually 
gave  way,  perforce,  to  the  « Gospel  of  the  Separated »,  i.  e.  to  the 
four  Gospels.  Between  360  and  370,  St.  Ephraem  Syrus  wrote  a 
commentary  on  the  Diatessaron  of  Tatian ;  Theodoret  of  Cyrus,  who 
died  about  458,  found  it  necessary  to  remove  from  the  churches 
of  his  diocese  more  than  two  hundred  copies  of  this  work,  in  the 
place  of  which  he  put  the  Syriac  version  of  the  four  Gospels  (Theod.  1.  c.). 
It  is  possible  to  partially  reconstruct  the  Diatessaron  by  means  of 
the  commentary  of  St.  Ephraem,  whose  original  Syriac  text,  however, 

1  Eus.,  Hist,   eccl.,   iv.   29,   6 ;    Theodor.,  Haeret.   fab.   coinp.,   i.   20. 
-  i.  e.   Gospel  of  the  Mixed.  3  Mt.  i.    i  ff. ;   Lk.   iii.   23  ff. 


is  lost,  and  is  represented  by  an  Armenian  version.  For  this  pur 
pose  some  Syriac  fragments  are  also  accessible,  together  with  two 
later  revisions  of  the  Diatessaron:  one  in  Latin,  preserved  in  the 
Codex  Fuldensis  of  the  Vulgate,  written  at  Capua  about  545,  and  one 
in  Arabic,  more  recent  in  date,  it  is  true,  but  decidedly  nearer  to 
the  original  text. 

The  reconstruction  of  the  Diatessaron  in  Zahn,  Tatians  Diatessaron, 
1881,  pp.  112 — 219,  is  based  chietly  on  the  Latin  version  of  the  commentary 
of  Ephraem  made  by  J.  B.  Aucher  and  published  by  G.  Mosinger,  Venice, 
1876.  Cf.  §  82,  5  for  the  more  recent  contributions  to  our  knowledge  of  this 
commentary  made  by  J.  Rendel  Harris  and  J.  H.  Hill.  The  Latin  version 
is  the  work  of  an  anonymous  writer  who  lived  about  500  and  used  the 
Latin  text  of  the  Gospels,  revised  by  St.  Jerome  about  383.  Victor,  bishop 
of  Capua,  who  died  in  554,  caused  this  recension  to  be  inserted  in  the 
Codex  Fuldensis  of  the  New  Testament  Vulgate,  written  under  his  supervision; 
it  there  took  the  place  of  the  four  Gospels.  In  the  preface  Victor  speaks  of 
the  data  furnished  by  Eusebius  concerning  the  Diatessaron  of  Tatian  (Hist. 
eccl.,  iv.  29,  6)  and  of  the  attempts  of  Ammonius  of  Alexandria  (Ens.,  Ep. 
ad  Carpianum)  to  compile  a  harmony.  This  explains  why  this  Latin  Gospel- 
harmony  is  sometimes  printed  under  the  name  of  Tatian,  and  again  (Migne, 
PL.,  Ixviii.  251 — 358)  under  that  of  Ammonius.  There  is  an  excellent  edition 
of  the  Codex  Fuldensis  by  E.  Ranke,  Marburg  and  Leipzig,  1868.  Fr.  P.  A. 
(later  Cardinal)  Ciasca  edited  the  Arabic  revision,  Rome,  1888,  from  two 
manuscripts,  and  added  a  Latin  translation.  Mr.  and  Mrs.  H.  W.  Hogg 
translated  the  Arabic  text  into  English  in  the  Ante-Nicene  Christian  Library 
(additional  volume),  Edinburgh,  1897,  pp.  33 — 138.  Some  new  Syriac  frag 
ments  were  published  by H.  Goussen,  in  Studia  theologica,  Leipzig,  1895, 
i.  62—67.  Amid  the  copious  literature  on  the  Diatessaron  the  book  of  Zahn, 
cited  above,  is  especially  worthy  of  mention.  Cf.  the  continuation  of  Zahn's 
own  studies,  in  his  Forschnngen  zur  Geschichte  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons 
(1883),  ii.  286 — 299,  and  in  his  Geschichte  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons  (1888), 
i.  i,  369—429;  (1892),  ii.  2,  530—556.  Cf.  also  J.  P.  P.  Martin,  in  Revue 
des  questions  historiques  (1883),  xxxiii.  349 — 394;  (1888),  xliv.  5-  50.  On 
the  Arabic  version  the  reader  may  consult  E.  Sellin  in  Zahn,  Forschungen 
zur  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons  (1891),  iv.  225 — 246.  « Zur  Geschichte 
von  Tatian's  Diatessaron  im  Abendland»  cf.  Zahn,  in  Neue  kirchl.  Zeitschr. 
(1894),  v.  85  — 120.  M.  Maker,  Recent  Evidence  for  the  Authenticity  of 
the  Gospels:  Tatian's  Diatessaron,  London,  1893.  A.  Hjelt,  Die  altsyrischen 
Evangelien-Ubersetztmgen  und  Tatians  Diatessaron,  besonders  in  ihrem 
gegenseitigen  Verhaltnis  tmtersucht,  Leipzig,  1901.  H.  Gressmann,  Studien 
zum  syrischen  Tetraevangelium,  i.,  in  Zeitschr.  fiir  die  neutestamentl.  Wissen- 
schaft  (1904),  pp.  175,  248—252.  F.  Crawford  Burkitt ,  Evangelion  da 
Mepharreshe,  The  Curetonian  Version  of  the  Four  Gospels,  with  the  read 
ings  of  the  Sinai  Palimpsest  and  the  Early  Syriac  Patristic  Evidence,  etc., 
Cambridge  University  Press,  1904,  i.  xix,  556;  ii  (introduction  and  notes) 
vii,  322.  J.  F.  Stenning,  (art.)  «Diatessaron»  v&  Hastings'  Diet,  of  the  Bible 
(extra  vol.,  1904)  pp.  451 — 461. 

4.  LOST  WRITINGS.  -  Other  works  of  Tatian  have  entirely 
perished.  He  mentions  in  his  Apology  (c.  15)  a  work  «On  animals» 
(Trspt  £w(ovj,  and  another  (c.  16)  in  which  he  treated  of  the  nature 
of  demons.  He  promised  a  book  (c.  40)  « Against  those  who  have 
treated  of  divine  things*  fapuQ  TOUQ  dito^T^a^ivo^  ™  nspl  &souj,  per- 

§    I Q.     MILTIADES.      APOLLINARIS    OF    HIERAPOLIS.      MELITO    OF    SARDES.      6 1 

haps  a  refutation  of  heathen  anti-Christian  calumnies.  Rhodon,  a 
disciple  of  Tatian,  mentions1  a  «Book  of  problems»  (irpoftfajpLdTotv 
fUtfiMov),  in  which  Tatian  undertook  to  demonstrate  the  existence  of 
errors  and  antilogies  in  the  Sacred  Scriptures  (of  the  Old  Testament). 
Clement  of  Alexandria  mentions  and  refutes2  a  work  of  Tatian  «On 
perfection  according  to  the  precepts  of  the  Saviour »  (Ttspl  TOO  xara. 
TOV  (jcorr^oa.  xarapTifffiouJ.  We  learn  from  Eusebius3  that  « Meta 
phrases »  or  corrections  of  certain  sayings  of  St.  Paul  were  attributed 
to  Tatian. 

The  « testimonial  relative  to  the  lost  writings  are  to  be  found  in 
the  current  editions  of  the  « O ratio »;  de  Otto,  pp.  i64sq. ,  and  Schwartz, 
pp.  48  sq. 

§   19.     Miltiades.     Apollinaris  of  Hierapolis.     Melito  of  Sardes. 

1.  MILTIADES.  -  -  Miltiades    of  Asia  Minor   was   a  contemporary 
of  Tatian,    and    perhaps   also    a    disciple    of  Justin4.      He    defended 
the  Christian   truth   against   pagans,   Jews   and    heretics,    but   all  his 
writings   have    fallen    a  prey  to  time.     We  know   from    later   writers 
that  he  composed  a  work  against  the  Montanists  5  in  which  he  sought 
to  prove  that  a  prophet   should    not   speak  in  ecstacy    fas  pi  TOO  fiy 
0£?y  npoyyrqv  ev  Ixardffet  AaAewJ,  and  another  against  the  Valentinian 
Gnostics  (Tert.  1.  c.),  also  a  work  in  two  books  against  the  heathens 

/Jyvaq),    another  in  two    books   against   the  Jews   (r.pbc,  'loo- 
and   an   Apology    for    « Christian    philosophy))    addressed  to 
« temporal  rulers » 6. 

The  « testimonial  relative  to  Miltiades  are  given  by  de  Otto,  Corpus 
Apolog. ,  ix.  364 — 373;  cf.  Harnack,  Geschichte  der  altchristl.  Literatur, 
i.  255  ff. ;  ii.  i,  361  if. 

2.  APOLLINARIS.  -  -  Claudius   Apollinaris,    bishop    of  Hierapolis, 
in  the  reign  of  Marcus  Aurelius,  left  a  number  of  works.     Eusebius 
mentions7  a  «Defence  of  the  Christian  faith »   presented  to  Marcus  Au 
relius,  apparently  in  172,  five  books  against  the  Pagans  (-pb$'t])j.rtva.z)t 
two  books  on  Truth  faspl  dAy&eiasJ,  a  Circular  Letter  against  the  Mon 
tanists  with  the   « subscriptions))  or  opinions  of  other  bishops,  a  work 
On  Easter8  (nspl  TOL>  7rdff%aj,  and  one  on  Religion  frrspl  suffsftztaQj^, 
identical  perhaps  with  the   «Defence  of  the  Christian  faith».     All  of 
these  writings  have  perished. 

1  Ens.,  Hist,  eccl.,  v.    13,   8.  2  Strom.,  iii.    12,   81. 

3  Hist,  eccl.,  iv.   29,   6. 

4  Tertull.,  Adv.   Valent,   c.   5;  Hippolytus  in  Eus.,  Hist,   eccl.,  v.   28,   4. 

5  Anonym,   apud  Ens.   1.   c.,   v.  17,    i.  6  £us.  1.   c.,   v.    17,   5. 

7  Ib.,  iv.   26,    i;   27;   Chron.   ad  a.  Abraham  2187:   Hist,  eccl.,   iv.   27;   ib.,   v.    19. 

8  It  is  twice  cited  in   the  Chronicon  Paschale,   ed.   Dindorf,   pp.    13 — 14. 

9  Phot.,  Bibl.   Cod.    14. 


The  «testimonia»  and  fragments  are  in  Routh,  Reliquiae  Sacrae,  2.  ed., 
i.  155 — 174;  de  Otto  1.  c.,  ix.  479—495.  Cf.  Harnack  1.  c.,  i.  243 — 246; 
ii.  i,  358  sq. ;  Zahn ,  Forschungen  zur  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons, 
(1893),  v.  3sq. 

3.  MELITO.  -  -  Still  more  extensive  and  varied  was  the  literary 
activity  of  a  third  native  of  Asia  Minor,  Melito,  bishop  of  Sardes  in 
Lydia.  He  died  before  194 — 195  «a  eunuch»  (i.  e.  unmarried),  and  «in 
all  his  life  and  works  filled  with  the  Holy  Spirit »,  widely  honoured  also 
as  a  prophet1.  Eusebius  and  Anastasius  Sinaita  were  acquainted  with 
the  following  works  of  Melito:  a)  a  brief  Apology  for  the  Christian 
faith,  presented  to  Marcus  Aurelius  perhaps  in  172,  some  fragments 
of  which  are  extant2;  b)  two  books  on  Easter  (nepl  TOO  izdaya)  com 
posed  during  the  proconsulate  of  Servilius  Paulus,  or  rather,  as  Ru- 
finus  states,  in  that  of  Sergius  Paulus,  perhaps  166  — 167  (Bus.,  Hist, 
eccl.  iv.  26,  2 — 3);  c)  On  the  Right  Way  of  Living  and  the  Pro 
phets  (xspl  xoAtTsiac;  xal  xpoyr/Tcov,  id.  1.  c.  iv.  26,  2;  Hier.  1.  c. : 
De  vita  prophetarum),  probably  a  work  against  Montanism;  d)  On 
the  Church  fas  pi  sxx/ymaq,  Eus.;  e)  On  Sunday  (xspl  xupiax9JQ  id.)\ 

f)  On  the  Nature  of  Man  fas  pi  (poczcoq,  al.    TziarecoQ,  avftpconoo,  id.)\ 

g)  On  the  Creation  of  Man  fnspl  xAdaecoQ,  id.) ;  h)  On  the  Obedience 
of  Faith  fjrspl  bnaxor/Q  TiictTZtoQ,  id.) ;  i)  On  the  Senses  fxspl  oiiaxo^c, 
rriffTEd)^  alaftTjTqp'uov,  id.).    According  to  other  text-witnesses  this  title 
is  corrupt ,  and  contains  really    two  titles ;  k)  On  Baptism  (xspl  Aoo- 
Tpoo,  id.)\  1)  On  Truth  (izepl  aArfteiac,,  id.)]  m)  On  the  Creation  and 
Birth  of  Christ  (xzpl  xriasoiQ  xal  "fzviazcoc,  Xpiarou,  id.);  n)  On  Pro 
phecy  (xspl  -poprjTslaZi  id.;  Rufinus,  Prophetia  eius;  Hier.,  De  pro- 
phetia  sua,  probably  against  Montanism) ;  o)  On  Hospitality  fnspl  <ptAo- 

Q,  Eus.) ;  p)  The  Key  f'H  zAeic,  id.) ;  q)  On  the  Devil  (mpt  TOO 
id.) ;  r)  On  the  Revelation  of  John  fnepl  TOO  diaftbXoo  xal 
oG  'Icodvvoo,  id. ;  Rufinus ,  De  diabolo,  De  revelatione 
loannis;  Hier.,  De  diabolo,  De  apocalypsi  loannis);  s)  On  the  Cor 
poreity  of  God  (ftepl  IvGcu/jLaTou  #£oo,  Eus. ;  nspl  TOO  syffat^aTov  slvat 
TOV  fts/w,  Orig.,  Sel.  in  Gen.  ad  i.  26);  t)  Extracts  ("ExXofat,  Eus.), 
i.  e.  « Extracts  from  the  Law  and  the  Prophets  concerning  our  Saviour 
and  our  entire  faith »  in  six  books.  Eusebius  gives  (1.  c.  iv.  26,  12 — 14) 
the  preface  of  the  work ;  u)  On  the  Passion  of  the  Lord  (elq  TO  xdttoQ, 
Anast.  Sin.,  Viae  dux,  c.  12,  a  short  citation);  v)  On  the  Incarnation 
of  Christ  (nspl  aapxaxjecoc,  XpioToo),  an  anti-Marcionite  work,  in  at  least 
three  books,  id.  1.  c.  c.  13,  a  rather  long  citation.  All  these  works  are 
lost.  Besides  the  already  cited  fragments  there  remain  four  scholia  on 
the  sacrifice  of  Isaac  as  a  type  of  the  Crucifixion  of  Christ.  They  were 
taken,  probably,  from  the  « Extracts »  mentioned  by  Eusebius,  but  were 

1  Polycr.  in  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  v.   24,   5.      Tertull.  in  Hier.,  De  vir.  ill.  c.   24. 

2  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,   iv.  13,   8;   26,    I  —  2;   5  —  11;   Chron.  ad  a.  Abr.   2187;   Chron. 
Pasch.   ed.  Dindorf,  483. 

§   IQ.      MILTIADES.       APOLLINARIS    OF    HIERAPOLIS.       MELITO    OF    SARDES.  63 

already  corrupted  by  spurious  additions.  There  is  also  an  interesting 
fragment  on  the  baptism  of  the  Lord  in  the  Jordan,  very  probably 
from  the  homonymous  work  in  the  catalogue  of  Eusebius.  Four 
fragments,  preserved  in  Syriac  only,  ought  to  be  considered  as  be 
longing  to  Melito:  ex  Tractatu  de  anima  et  corpore,  ex  Sennone  de 
cruce,  De  fide,  Melitonis  episcopi  urbis  Attic ae ;  in  other  codices,  it 
is  true,  they  bear  the  name  of  Alexander  of  Alexandria  (f  328).  On 
the  other  hand,  Melito  is  not  the  author  of  an  Apology  that  has  come 
down  to  us  in  Syriac,  entitled  Oratio  Melitonis  p  kilos  op  hi  quae  habita 
est  cor  am  Antonino  Caesar  e.  It  is  an  energetic  polemic  against  polytheism 
and  idolatry,  akin  to  the  Apology  of  the  Athenian  Aristides,  very  pro 
bably  of  Syriac  origin,  and  belonging  to  the  end  of  the  second  or  the  be 
ginning  of  the  third  century;  and  the  Syriac  text  is  probably  not  a 
translation  but  the  original.  An  Armenian  fragment  of  four  lines,  ex  Me 
litonis  epistola  ad  Eutrepium,  and  several  Latin  treatises,  De  passione 
S.  Joannis  Evangelistae,  De  transitu  B.  Mariae  Virginis,  Clavis  Scrip 
turae,  Catena  in  Apocalypsin,  are  wrongly  ascribed  to  him.  Cardinal 
Pitra,  the  editor  of  the  extensive  Clavis  Scripturae,  tried  to  recognize 
in  it  a  translation  or  rather  a  revision  and  enlargement  of  the  «Key» 
of  Melito,  mentioned  in  Eusebius.  In  reality  it  is  a  biblical  glossary 
compiled  from  Augustine,  Gregory  the  Great,  and  other  Latin  Fathers. 
At  the  present  it  cannot  be  more  precisely  dated ;  we  know  however 
that  no  attempt  was  made  to  identify  it  with  the  «Key»  before  the 
eleventh  century. 

The  «testimonia»  and  the  fragments  are  in  Routh  1.  c.,  i.  in — 153; 
de  Otto  1.  c.,  ix.  374 — 478,  497  —  512.  Cf.  Harnack  1.  c.,  i.  246 — 255;  ii. 
i,  358  if.,  517  ff.,  522  if.  C.  Thomas,  Melito  von  Sardes,  Osnabriick,  1893. 
The  Greek  fragment  «on  Baptism »  was  edited  by  Pitra,  Analecta  Sacra 
(1884),  ii.  3 — 5;  for  its  textual  criticism  see  J.  M.  Mercati ,  in  Theol. 
Quartalschr.  (1894),  Ixxvi.  597  —  600. 

The  Syriac  Apology  and  the  four  Syriac  fragments  were  first  edited 
by  W.  Cureton,  Spicilegium  Syriacum,  London,  1855.  All  these  fragments, 
Syriac  and  Latin  (with  exception  of  the  fourth),  as  edited  by  E.  Renan, 
are  to  be  found  in  Pitra,  Spicil.  Solesm.  (1855),  ii.  de  Otto  gives  (1.  c.) 
all  the  Syriac  fragments  (pp.  497 — 512),  also  the  Latin  (pp.  419—432);  cf. 
pp.  453 — 478.  There  is  a  German  version  of  the  Apology  (from  the  Syriac) 
by  B.  Welte,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1862),  xliv.  384 — 410,  and  another  from 
the  Latin  version  of  v.  Otto,  by  V.  Grone,  in  Bibliothek  der  Kirchenvater, 
Kempten,  1873.  For  tne  Apology  cf.  Harnack  1.  c.,  ii.  i,  522  ff.,  and  the 
literature  there  indicated.  On  the  four  fragments  see  G.  Kruger,  in  Zeitschr. 
fur  wissenschaftl.  Theol.  (1888),  xxxi.  434 — 448;  Thomas  1.  c.,  pp.  40 — 51. 
The  four  Armenian  lines  ex  Melitonis  epistola  ad  Eutrepium  are  in  Pitra, 
Analecta  Sacra  (1883),  iv.  16  292.  The  Clavis  Scripturae  was  twice  edited 
by  Pitra:  in  its  longer  form  in  Spicil.  Solesm.  (1855),  ii — iii.  i,  and  in  the 
shorter,  more  original  form,  in  Analecta  Sacra  (1884),  ii.  For  more 
specific  information  see  O.  Rottmanncr,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1896),  Ixxviii. 
614 — 629.  For  the  other  Latin  writings  mentioned  above  cf.  Harnack  1.  c., 
i.  252 — 254.  H.  Jordan,  Melito  und  Novatian,  in  Archiv  fur  latein.  Lexiko- 
graphie  imd  Grammatik  (1902),  xii.  59—68. 


§  20.     Athenagoras  of  Athens. 

1.  HIS  LIFE.  --In  the  title  of  his  Apology,  whose  manuscript-tradi 
tion  can  be  traced  to  the  year  914,  Athenagoras  is  called  the  « Christian 
philosopher  of  Athens » ('A&yvcuoG,  (cO.oaoyoQ,  xptanavoq).  Very  unreliable, 
however,  are  the  data  that  an  anonymous  writer  on  the  Alexandrine 
teachers  pretends  to  have  found  in  the  « Christian  History »  of  Philippus 
Sidetes  (§  79,  2).    According  to  them  Athenagoras  presented  an  Apo 
logy  to  Hadrian  and  Antoninus  (Pius),  and  was  the  first  master  of  the 
Alexandrine  catechetical  school.     The  introduction  to  the  Apology  is 
a  proof  that  it  was  addressed  to  Marcus  Aurelius  and  Commodus,  and 
was,    therefore,    composed   between  November   176   and   March   1 80 

-  probably  in  1 77.  It  is  possible  that  the  hypothesis  of  Zahn  is  correct : 
he  identifies  our  Athenagoras  with  another  of  the  same  name  to 
whom,  after  1 80,  Boethus  of  Alexandria  dedicated  his  book  « on  the 
difficult  expressions  in  Plato  »1. 

Harnack,    Gesch.  der  altchristl.  Literatur,  i.   256 — 258;  ii.   i,  317 — 319 
710.     A.  Eberhard,  Athenagoras  (Progr.)j  Augsburg,   1895. 

2.  HIS  WORKS.  —  The  purpose  of  his  Apology  or  « Supplication »  for 
the  Christians  (xpeafida  Kepi  /piffrtavwv,  Supplicatio  seu  legatio  pro  Chri- 
stianis)  is  to  show  the  absurdity  of  the  calumnies  current  against  them, 
viz.  atheism,  Thyestean  banquets,  Oedipean  incest  (c.  3).  The  first  accu 
sation  is  very  solidly  refuted  by  a  splendid  exposition  and  demonstration 
of  the  Christian  doctrine  concerning  God  (cc.  4 — 30).    The  other  two 
imputations  are  disproved  by  a  brief  resume  of  the  principles  of  Chris 
tian  morality  (cc.  32 — 36).   It  is  only  en  passant  that  the  Apology  deals 
polemically    with   heathenism;    otherwise    in    contents    it    closely    re 
sembles  the  Dialogue  of  Minucius  Felix,  though  it  cannot  be  shown 
that  the  latter  made  use  of  the  work  of  Athenagoras.    The  only  certain 
traces   of  its   presence   in   ancient    Christian    literature   are    found   in 
Methodius  of  Olympus  2,  and  in  Philippus  Sidetes,  as  described  above. 
Still  less  attention  was  paid  in  antiquity  to  his  work  «On  the  Resurrection 
of  the  dead»  (Hspl  dvaardazwc,  vzxp&y).     In  the  Arethas-Codex  of  914 
it  follows  the  Apology  and  is  attributed  to  the  same  author.     No  other 
witness  to  this  work  is  forthcoming ;  nevertheless,  there  is  no  reason 
to  deny  the  assertion  of  the  manuscript,  all  the  more  as  Athenagoras 
himself,  at  the  end  of  his  Apology  (c.  36,  al.  37),  promises  a  discussion 
of  the    doctrine  of  the  resurrection.     The    work  is  divided    into   two 
parts.     In  the   first  the    objections   against   the  possibility  of  the  re 
surrection  are    refuted  (cc.    i  — 10);    in    the   second  (cc.    n — 25)    the 
author  undertakes  to  prove  the  reality  of  the  resurrection :  a)  from  the 
destination  of  man,  and  of  every  rational  creature,  to  be  and  live  without 
end;  b)  from  human  nature,  a  synthesis  of  soul  and  body  (cc.  14 — 17); 

1  Phot.,  Bibl.   Cod.    155. 

2  De  resurr.,  i.   37,    i.   (ed.  BonwetscJi). 

§    21.       THEOPHILUS    OF    ANTIOCH.  65 

c)  from  the  necessity  of  a  retribution,  not  alone  for  the  soul  but  for 
the  body  (cc.  1 8 — 23);  d)  from  the  last  end  (riXoQ)  of  man,  that  is 
unattainable  in  this  life  (cc.  24 — 25). 

All  the  known  codices  of  the  Apology  and  the  treatise  on  the  Resurrec 
tion  are  based  on  one  archetype,  the  Arethas-Codex  (§  13).  The  treatise 
on  the  Resurrection  was  first  edited  by  P.  Nannius  (Louvain,  1541),  and 
the  Apology  by  C.  Gesner  (Zurich,  1557).  For  the  editions  of  both  by  Morelli 
and  Maranus  (Gallandi,  Migne) ,  de  Otto  (Corpus  apolog.  vii.)  cf.  §  13. 
The  most  recent  edition  is  that  by  Ed.  Schwartz,  Leipzig,  1891  (Texte  und 
Untersuchungen ,  iv.  2).  Both  works  were  translated  into  German  by 
Al.  Bieringer ,  Kempten,  1875  (Bibl.  der  Kirchenvater).  There  is  an 
English  translation  by  B.  P.  Pratten ,  in  Ante-Nicene  Fathers  (Am.  ed. 
1885),  ii.  129—162.  C.  y.  Hefele,  Beitrage  ztir  Kirchengesch. ,  Archao- 
logie  und  Liturgik,  Tubingen,  1864,  i.  60 — 86:  «Lehre  des  Athenagoras 
und  Analyse  seiner  Schriften.»  R.  Forster,  Uber  die  altesten  Herabilder, 
nebst  einem  Exkurs  liber  die  Glaubwiirdigkeit  der  kunstgeschichtl.  An- 
gaben  des  Athenagoras  (Progr.),  Breslau,  1868.  L.  Arnould,  De  Apologia 
Athenagorae,  Paris,  1898. 

3.  CHARACTERISTICS.  Athenagoras  is  a  very  attractive  writer.  In 
originality  of  thought  he  yields,  possibly,  to  his  predecessors  Justin 
and  Tatian,  but  he  far  surpasses  them  in  felicity  of  expression,  purity 
and  beauty  of  diction,  simplicity  and  lucidity  of  arrangement.  He  is 
well  acquainted  with  the  Greek  classics.  His  Apology  even  betrays 
a  certain  fondness  for  the  citation  of  poets  and  philosophers.  In 
accord  with  Justin,  and  in  opposition  to  Tatian,  he  exhibits  a  friendly 
attitude  toward  Greek  philosophy,  especially  Platonism.  Out  of  the 
treasure  of  Christian  doctrine  he  selects  only  such  principles  as  seem 
best  adapted  to  blunt  the  edge  of  heathen  calumny.  For  him 
the  witnesses  and  guarantors  of  Christian  faith  are  the  prophets, 
« Moses,  Isaias,  Jeremias,  and  the  others »  whose  mouth  acted  as  an 
organ  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  even  as  the  flute  is  the  organ  of  the  flute- 
player  (Supplic.  cc.  7  9).  The  rational  proof  of  the  unity  of  God 
(c.  8)  merits  attention,  as  it  is  the  first  scientific  attempt  of  the  Chris 
tians  to  justify  their  monotheism.  He  bears  witness  to  the  Blessed 
Trinity  with  almost  startling  clearness  and  precision  (see  especially  c.  10). 

F.  Schiibring,  Die  Philosophic  des  Athenagoras  (Progr.),  Berlin,  1882. 
A.  Joannides,  UpaYjxaTeia  rep!  rrj?  Trap'  'A»>Y]va70pa  cpiXasocpixyjc  Yvwaeuc  (Dissert, 
inaug.),  Jena,  1883.  J.  Lehmann,  Die  Auferstehungslehre  des  Athenagoras 
(Inaug.-Dissert.),  Leipzig,  1890.  P.  Logothetes ,  CH  UeoXoyia  TOO  'A^va-fopou 
(Dissert,  inaug.),  Leipzig,  1893.  A.  Pommrich,  Des  Apologeten  Theophilus 
von  Antiochien  Gottes-  und  Logoslehre,  dargestellt  unter  Beriicksichtigung 
der  gleichen  Lehre  des  Athenagoras  von  Athen,  Dresden,  1902. 

§  21.     Theophilus  of  Antioch. 

I.  HIS  LIFE.  Theophilus  is  the  sixth  or,  including  St.  Peter,  the 
seventh  bishop  of  Antioch  1.  Eusebius  relates  that  Theophilus  became 

1  Eus.,  Chron.  ad  a.  Abraham  2185;  Hist,  eccl.,  iv.  20.  St.  Jet:,  De  viris  illustr., 
c.  25;  Ep.  121,  6. 



bishop  of  that  see  in  169,  and  his  successor  Maximinus  in  177*.  The 
latter  date  conflicts  with  the  fact  that  the  last  of  the  three  books 
Ad  Autolycum,  which  Eusebius  himself  says  2  were  written  by  Theo- 
philus,  must  have  been  composed  some  little  time  after  the  death 
of  Marcus  Aurelius  (March  17,  180;  op.  cit.  cc.  27 — -28).  Taking 
the  contradiction  for  granted,  it  is  better  to  assume  with  Harnack 
that  the  second  date  is  erroneous  than  to  admit  with  Erbes  another 
and  a  later  Theophilus  as  author  of  the  books  Ad  Autolycum.  From 
internal  evidence  it  appears  (i.  14)  that  the  author  had  reached  a 
mature  age  when  he  abandoned  heathenism  for  Christianity;  that  his 
home  was  not  far  from  the  Euphrates  and  the  Tigris,  and  that  he 
was  probably  born  in  that  neighbourhood  (ii.  24) ;  that  he  had  received 
the  training  of  an  Hellene,  but  possessed  also  a  certain  knowledge 
of  Hebrew  (ii.  12,  24;  iii.  19). 

C.  Erbes,  Die  Lebenszeit  des  Hippolytus  nebst  der  des  Theophilus  von 
Antiochien,  in  Jahrbticher  fiir  prot.  Theol.  (1888),  xiv.  611 — 656.  Harnack) 
Gesch.  der  altchristl.  Literatur,  i.  496—502;  ii.  208 — 213  319  ff.  534  ff. 

2.  THE  THREE  BOOKS  AD  AUTOLYCUM.  The  three  books  xpOQ 
A'jroXoxov  are  held  together  by  a  slender  thread.  If  it  be  true  that 
the  third  book  was  composed  about  181  — 182,  the  other  two  may 
well  have  been  written  at  a  much  earlier  date.  In  the  first  book, 
apropos  of  a  conversation  with  his  heathen  friend  Autolycus,  the 
author  treats  of  the  faith  of  Christians  in  an  invisible  God  (cc.  2 — n) 
and  of  the  name  « Christian »  (c.  12).  As  a  complement  and  illustration 
of  the  first  book,  the  second  discusses  the  folly  of  heathen  idolatry 
(cc.  2 — 8)  and  offers  a  comprehensive  view  of  the  teachings  of  the 
prophets,  «men  of  God  and  representatives  of  the  Holy  Spirit » 
(cc.  9 — 38).  The  third  book  shows  the  futility  of  the  anti- Christian 
calumnies  (Thyestean  banquets  and  Oedipean  incest,  cc.  4 — 15),  and 
offers  proof  that  the  Sacred  Scriptures  of  the  Christians  are  much  older 
than  the  beginnings  of  Greek  history  and  literature,  older  even  than  the 
mythological  epoch  of  the  Greeks  (cc.  1 6 — 29).  The  style  of  Theophilus 
is  smooth  and  unembarrassed,  vigorous  and  lively ;  a  characteristic  trait 
is  his  recognition  of  the  subjective  conditions  of  faith  and  the  depen 
dence  of  religious  knowledge  on  purity  of  mind  (i.  2  ff ).  He  attributes 
an  identical  authority  to  the  writings  of  the  Evangelists  (ii.  22;  iii.  12), 
to  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul  (iii.  14),  and  to  the  Prophets  (ii.  9;  iii.  12). 
He  is  the  first  to  use  the  term  rpiac,  to  indicate  the  distinction  of 
persons  in  the  Godhead  (ii.  1 5) 

The  books  Ad  Autolycum  have  come  down  to  us  in  the  eleventh-century 
Codex  Marcianus  496,  and  of  others  that  depend  upon  it.  J.  Frisius 
(C.  Gesner)  published  the  editio  princeps,  Zurich,  1546;  for  later  editions 
see  §  13.  The  most  recent  is  that  of  de  Otto,  Corp.  apolog.,  viii.  A  German 

1  Chron.  ad  a.  Abraham  2185   2193.  2  Hist,  eccl.,  iv.   24. 

§    21.      THEOPHILUS    OF    ANTIOCH.  6/ 

version  was  made  by  J.  Leitl  (Bibl.  der  Kirchenvater),  Kempten,  1873.  There 
is  an  English  translation  by  M.  Dods ,  in  Ante-Nicene  Fathers  (Am.  ed. 
1885),  ii.  89 — 121.  For  the  concept  of  faith  in  this  work  of  Theophilus 
cf.  L.  Paul,  in  Jahrbiicher  fur  prot.  Theol.  (1875),  i-  546 — 559-  The  eyi' 
dence  of  Theophilus  to  the  Canon  of  the  New  Testament  is  treated  by 
Harnack,  in  Zeitschr.  fur  Kirchengesch.  (1889 — 1890),  xi.  i — 21.  For  his 
teaching  concerning  God  cf.  G.  Karabangeles,  Leipzig,  1891  (Dissert,  inaug.), 
and  O.  Gross,  Chemnitz,  1896  (Progr.).  A.  Pommrich,  Des  Apologeten 
Theophilus  von  Antiochien  Gottes-  und  Logoslehre,  etc. ,  Dresden,  1902. 
O.  Clausen,  Die  Theologie  des  Theophilus  von  Antiochien,  in  Zeitschr.  fur 
wissenschaftl.  Theol.  (1902),  xlv.  81 — 141;  (1903),  xlvi.  195 — 213. 

3.  LOST  WRITINGS.  Theophilus  often  refers  to  a  previous  work 
of  his,  the  first  book  of  which  was  entitled  "K£p\  iaropicov;  it  dealt 
with  the  earliest  history  of  mankind  (ii.  30).  The  citations  of  John 
Malalas  (ed.  Dindorf  2^  al.  59)  from  a  «Theophilus  chronographer» 
are  very  probably  not  from  this  work.  —  Eusebius  mentions *  a  work 
of  Theophilus,  Against  the  heresy  of  Hermogenes  (npoQ  ~yv  alpemv 
'Ep/iofevovgj,  some  catechetical  writings  (TWO.  xarqyrjTtxa  ftifitiaj  men 
tioned  also  by  St.  Jerome2,  and  a  work  against  Marcion  fxara  Map- 
XIWVOQ).  St.  Jerome  mentions  also  (ibid.)  two  works  current  under  the 
name  of  Theophilus :  Commentaries  on  the  Gospel 3,  and  on  the 
Proverbs  of  Solomon  (in  Evangelium  et  in  Proverbia  Salomonis  com- 
mentarii).  De  la  Bigne  published  (1575)  under  the  name  of  Theo 
philus  a  Latin  Commentary  on  the  Gospels,  an  unorderly  collection 
of  allegorical  scholia  on  excerpts  from  the  four  Gospels.  It  ought 
not  to  be  identified,  as  is  done  by  Zahn,  with  the  Commentary 
described  by  St.  Jerome,  nor  should  it  be  attributed  to  Theophilus. 
It  is  rather,  what  Harnack  has  proved  it  to  be,  a  compilation  from 
Cyprian,  Jerome,  Ambrose,  the  pseudo-Arnobius  Junior,  and  Au 
gustine,  put  together  by  a  Latin  compiler,  probably  in  Southern  Gaul, 
and  toward  the  end  of  the  fifth  century.  In  three  ancient  manuscripts, 
unknown  to  Zahn,  there  is  a  prologue  to  the  work  in  which  the  an 
onymous  author  says  that  his  labours  are  an  anthology  from  earlier 
expositors  (tractatoribus  defloratis  opusculum  spiritale  composui). 

Editions  of  the  pseudo-Theophilus-commentary  on  the  Gospels  are  found 
in  De  la  Bigne,  Bibl.  SS.  Patrum,  Paris,  1575,  v.  169 — 192 ;  de  Otto,  Corpus 
apolog.,  viii.  278  —  326;  Zahn,  Forschungen  zur  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl. 
Kanons  (1883),  ii.  29 — 85.  For  the  three  codices  discovered  since  that 
date  cf.  Harnack,  in  Texte  und  Untersuchungen  (1883),  i.  4,  159 — 175; 
Pitra,  Analecta  Sacra  (1884),  ii.  624 — 634,  649 — 650;  Zahn  1.  c.,  ii.  (Der 
Evangelienkommentar  des  Theophilus  von  Antiochien),  also  (1884),  iii. 
198 — 277;  Harnack  1.  c.,  pp.  97 — 176  (Der  angebliche  Evangelienkommen 
tar  des  Theophilus  von  Antiochien),  and  Theol.  Literaturzeitung,  1886, 
pp.  404  f.  A.  Hauck,  in  Zeitschrift  fiir  kirchl.  Wissenschaft  und  kirchl. 

1  Hist,  eccl.,  iv.   24. 

2  De  viris  illustr.,   c.  25:   breves  elegantesque  tractatus  ad  aedificationem  ecclesiae 

3  Cf.  also  Ep.    121,  6;  Comm.  in  Matth.,  praef. 



Leben  (1884),  v.  561  —  568;  W.  Sanday,  in  Studia  Biblica,  Oxford,  1885, 
pp.  89 — 101 ;  W.  Bornemann,  in  Zeitschr.  fur  Kirchengesch.  (1888 — 1889), 
x.  169 — 252,  also  took  part  in  the  controversy. 

§  22.     The  Letter  to  Diognetus. 

Under  the  name  of  Justin  Martyr  there  has  been  handed  down 
in  a  codex  of  the  thirteenth  or  fourteenth  century  a  Letter  to  Dio 
gnetus  (TTOOC,  AwyvriTov),  which  purposes  to  reply  to  certain  questions 
asked  by  a  heathen  much  interested  in  Christianity.  These  questions 
deal  with  the  specific  nature  of  the  Christian  adoration  of  God  in 
contradistinction  to  the  pagan  and  the  Jewish  worship,  the  sur 
prising  change  of  life  and  the  remarkable  love  for  their  neighbour 
that  the  Christians  exhibit.  It  is  further  asked  why  this  new 
religion  should  have  appeared  now,  and  not  at  an  earlier  period. 
The  replies  to  these  questions  are  distinguished  for  elevation  of 
tone,  profound  grasp  of  the  Christian  ideas,  magnificence  and 
splendour  of  exposition.  The  portrait  of  the  daily  life  of  the  Chris 
tians  is  positively  fascinating  (cc.  5 — 6).  The  theme  is  exhausted  in 
the  tenth  chapter;  what  is  read  in  cc.  u  — 12  of  the  codex  does 
not  belong  to  the  original  Letter.  Nor  does  the  codex  deserve 
credence  as  to  the  author  of  the  document,  whose  fine  classical  dic 
tion  is  quite  irreconcilable  with  the  unstudied,  unornamented  and 
unimpassioned  style  of  Justin.  Regarding  the  letter  we  have  no 
information  from  extrinsic  sources.  Donaldson  attempted  to  show  that 
it  was  an  academic  exercise  in  style  or  declamation,  belonging  to  the 
fifteenth  or  sixteenth  century.  But  the  date  of  the  codex  suffices  to 
discredit  this  hypothesis.  Internal  evidence  would  show  that  the  work 
belongs  to  the  era  of  the  persecutions  (cc.  5  7).  It  does  not  belong, 
therefore,  to  the  post-Constantinian  period,  as  Overbeck  asserts,  but 
rather  to  the  second  or  third  century.  In  the  absence  of  more  posi 
tive  evidence  it  is  difficult  to  assign  a  more  precise  date,  though  the 
earlier  one  seems  preferable.  In  this  case  the  recipient  of  the  Letter 
might  have  been  Diognetus,  the  well-known  preceptor  of  Marcus 
Aurelius.  The  authorship  has  been  variously  attributed;  by  Bunsen 
to  Marcion,  by  Draseke  to  Apelles,  the  disciple  of  Marcion,  by 
Doulcet,  Kihn,  and  Kriiger  to  Aristides  of  Athens.  The  latter  hypo 
thesis  alone  merits  attention.  There  is  an  undeniable  relationship 
between  the  two  documents ;  but  something  more  is  needed  to 
render  probable  an  identity  of  authorship  or  even  a  contemporaneous 
composition  of  both  works. 

The  Letter  to  Diognetus  reached  us  in  only  one  manuscript,  the  Codex 
Argentoratensis  9  (§  17,  2).  It  was  destroyed  by  the  fire  of  Strasburg  in  the 
siege  of  1870.  The  editio  princeps  is  that  of  H.  Stephanus ,  Paris,  1592. 
Later  it  was  printed  among  the  works  of  Justin  (§  17,  2)  by  de  Otto,  Corpus 
apolog.  (1879),  »i-  158  —  211,  and  more  recently  among  the  works  of  the 
Apostolic  Fathers  by  von  Gebhardt  and  Harnack,  Barnabae  epist.  (1878), 

§    23.       HERMIAS.  69 

pp.  142 — 164,  and  by  Funk,  Opera  Patr.  apostol.  (1878,  1887,  1901), 
i.  310 — 333.  The  latter  editor  was  the  first  to  make  use  (1901)  of  an 
ancient  copy  of  Codex  Argentoratensis  9,  preserved  at  Tubingen.  The 
Letter  has  been  often  translated  into  modern  languages.  We  are  indebted 
for  a  new  German  rendering  to  W.  Heinzdmann,  Erfurt,  1896.  There  is  an 
English  translation  by  Roberts  and  Donaldson,  in  Ante-Nicene  Fathers  (Am. 
ed.  1885),  i.  25 — 30.  Cf.  y.  Donaldson,  A  Critical  History  of  Christian 
Literature  and  Doctrine,  London,  1866,  ii.  126 — 142.  Fr.  Overbeck,  Uber 
den  pseudo-justinischen  Brief  an  Diognet  (Progr.) ,  Basel,  1872,  reprinted 
with  additions  in  the  same  author's  Studien  zur  Gesch.  der  alten  Kirche, 
Schloft  Chemnitz,  1875,  i.  i — 92.  J.  Draseke ,  Der  Brief  an  Diognetos, 
Leipzig,  1 88 1 ,  a  reprint  from  Jahrbticher  fur  prot.  Theol.  (1881),  vii. 
H.  Kihn,  Der  Ursprung  des  Briefes  an  Diognet,  Freiburg,  1882.  G.  Kriiger 
defended,  in  Zeitschr.  far  wissenschaftl.  Theol.  (1894),  xxxvii.  206 — 223,  the 
authorship  of  Aristides,  but  later  he  abandoned  this  opinion  of  Kihn ,  in 
his  Gesch.  der  altchristl.  Literatur,  appendices,  Freiburg,  1897.  For  the 
relations  between  the  Letter  and  the  Apology  of  Aristides  cf.  R.  Seeberg, 
in  Zahn,  Forschungen  zur  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons  (1893),  v. 
239 — 243.  Kihn,  Zum  Briefe  an  Diognet,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1902), 
Ixxxiv.  495 — 498.  G.  N.  Bonwetsch  has  shown  that  cc.  i — 12  of  the 
Letter  to  Diognetus  belong  to  Hippolytus.  F.  X.  Funk,  Das  Schluftkapitel 
des  Diognetenbriefes,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1903),  Ixxxv.  638 — 639. 

§  23.     Hermias. 

Under  the  title,  «A  Mockery  of  Heathen  Philosophers  by  the 
Philosopher  Hermias*  CEpp.siou  <f>do06<pou  dtaffupfjt&Q  TWV  £$a)  <ptXo~ 

at'upwy,  Irrisio  gentilium  philosophorum),  a  small  work  has  come  down 
that  sets  forth,  in  a  satirical  way,  the  contradictory  opinions  of  Greek 
philosophers  concerning  the  human  soul  (cc.  I — 2)  and  the  funda 
mental  principles  of  the  universe  (cc.  3 — 10).  The  author  exhibits 
wit  and  ability,  but  is  superficial,  inasmuch  as  he  constantly  fails  to 
seize  or  to  realize  the  respective  cohesion  of  the  theses  of  the  philo 
sophers.  This  work  is  never  mentioned  in  Christian  antiquity,  and  in 
the  text  itself  there  are  no  clear  traces  of  its  actual  date.  However,  the 
author  does  not  belong,  as  Diels  thinks,  to  the  fifth  or  sixth  century, 
but  rather  to  the  second  or  third.  Hermias  bears  the  title  of  «philo- 
sopher»  in  common  with  several  apologists  of  the  second  and  third 
centuries:  Aristides,  Justin,  Athenagoras,  and  the  pseudo-Melito.  The 
attitude  and  tendency  of  his  work,  its  polemical  bitterness  and  lively 
diction,  point,  apparently,  to  the  period  of  the  earliest  intellectual  conflict 
of  youthful  Christianity  with  Hellenic  philosophy.  Certain  indications 
that  the  writer  made  use  of  the  Cohortatio  ad  Gentiles  of  the  pseudo- 
Justin1,  do  not  justify  the  opinion  that  the  work  was  of  a  later 
date  than  we  have  indicated. 

For  the  manuscript-tradition  cf.  Harnack ,  Gesch.  der  altchristl.  Lite 
ratur,  i.  782  f.  The  cditio  princcps  is  that  of  J.  Oporinus ,  Basel,  1553. 

1  Compare  respectively  Irris.,  cc.  I  5,  with  Cohort.,  cc.  7  31.  In  the  latter  pas 
sages,  however,  it  seems  better  to  admit  the  use,  by  both  writers,  of  a  third  source  : 
i.  e.  Pseudo-Pint.,  De  placitis  phil.,  i.  7,  4. 


Other  editions  are  those  of  Morelli  and  Maranus  (Gallandi,  Migne),  v.  Otto, 
Corpus  apolog.,  ix.  i — 31;  cf.  xl. — li.  and  §  13.  The  most  recent  edition 
is  that  of  H.  Dieh ,  Doxographi  Graeci,  Berlin,  1879,  PP-  649 — 656,  cf. 
pp.  259  to  263.  A  German  version  by  J.  Leitl  is  found  in  the  Bibl.  der 
Kirchenvater,  Kempten,  1873. 

§  24.     Minucius  Felix. 

I.  THE  DIALOGUE  «OCTA\TUS».  This  Latin  apology  for  Chris 
tianity  is  in  every  way  worthy  to  rank  with  the  preceding  Greek  works 
of  the  same  nature.  It  is-thrown  into  the  form  of  a  Dialogue  between 
the  Christian  Octavius  Januarius  and  the  heathen  Caecilius  Natalis, 
both  friends  of  the  author  Minucius  Felix,  a  Roman  lawyer  (causidicus) . 
It  opens  in  a  very  lively  manner :  the  disputants  are  seated  by  the  sea 
at  Ostia,  having  chosen  Minucius  Felix  as  arbiter  of  their  controversy 
(cc.  I — 4).  Caecilius  advocates  the  teaching  of  the  Skeptics,  yet  de 
fends  the  faith  of  his  fathers  as  the  one  source  of  Roman  greatness ; 
Christianity  is  an  unreasonable  and  immoral  illusion  (cc.  5 — ^-3}- 
Octavius  follows  closely  the  arguments  of  Caecilius,  makes  a  drastic 
expose  of  the  follies  of  polytheism ,  and  refutes  the  usual  anti- 
Christian  calumnies  (adoration  of  the  head  of  an  ass,  of  the  genitalia 
of  the  clergy,  Thyestean  banquets,  Oedipean  incest,  atheism)  and 
closes  with  a  touching  portrait  of  the  faith  and  life  of  the  Christians 
(cc.  1 6 — 38).  No  arbiter's  judgment  is  needed,  as  Caecilius  admits 
his  defeat.  For  artistic  composition  and  graceful  treatment  of  the 
given  theme  none  of  the  second  or  third  century  Christian  apologies 
can  be  compared  to  the  «Octavius».  The  De  natura  deorum  of  Cicero 
was  apparently  the  author's  model.  He  certainly  made  use  of  this 
work  of  Cicero  and  of  his  De  divinatione,  likewise  of  the  De  pro- 
videntia  and  De  superstitione  of  Seneca.  A  generous  humanitarian 
tone  pervades  the  entire  work.  The  monotheistic  character  of  Chris 
tianity  is  constantly  insisted  on  (c.  18).  Its  most  important  feature 
is  the  practical  morality  it  inculcates  (c.  32,  3).  The  author  does 
not  mention  the  Christian  mysteries,  nor  does  he  make  use  of  the 
Sacred  Scriptures  (cf.  however  c.  34,  5).  At  the  same  time  we 
cannot  admit  with  Kiihn  that  Minucius  furnishes  no  more  than  «an 
ethnico-philosophical  concept  of  Christianity ».  His  work  is  an  ex 
position  of  the  genuine  Christian  truth,  but  executed  in  a  manner 
suitable  to  impress  the  philosophical  circles  of  heathenism. 

The  Dialogue  has  reached  us  only  through  Codex  Parisinus  1661  of 
the  ninth  century  (and  a  copy  of  the  sixteenth  century),  in  which  it  appears 
as  the  eighth  book  of  Arnobius'  Adversus  nationes.  The  first  editors  were 
F.  Sabaeus,  Rome,  1543,  and  Fr.  Balduin,  Heidelberg,  1560.  Later  it  was 
edited  or  reprinted  by  C.  de  Muralt,  Zurich,  1836;  Migne }  PL.,  iii.  (Paris, 
1844);  J.  B.  Kayser,  Paderborn,  1863;  C.  Halm,  Vienna,  1867  (Corpus 
script,  eccles.  lat. ,  ii.);  J.  J.  Cornelissen ,  Leyden,  1882;  E.  Bdhrens, 
Leipzig,  1886.  The  best  of  these  editions  is  that  by  Halm.  It  is  reprinted 

§    24.       MINUCIUS    FELIX.  7! 

in  Bibliotheca  Ss.  Patrum,  Rome,  1901.  For  new  contributions  to  the 
textual  criticism  of  « Octavius »  cf.  Teuffel-Schwabe,  Gesch.  der  romischen 
Literatur,  5.  ed.,  pp.  931  1317,  and  J.  Vahlen,  in  Index  lect.  Berol.  per 
sem.  aest.  a  (1894),  also  in  Hermes  (1895),  xxx-  3^5 — 39°-  C.  Synnerberg, 
Randbemerkungen  zu  Minucius  Felix,  Berlin,  1897.  Translations  into  German 
have  been  made  by  A.  Bieringer,  Kempten,  1871  (Bibliothek  der  Kirchen- 
vater) ;  B.  Dombart,  Erlangen,  1875  —  1%fl6'i  2-  ed-  (text  oi  Halm],  1881 ; 
H.  Hage.n,  Berne,  1890.  There  is  an  English  translation  by  R.  E.  Wallis,  in 
Ante-Nicene  Fathers  (Am.  ed.  1885),  iv.  173 — 198.  E.  Behr,  Der  Octavius 
des  M.  Minucius  Felix  in  seinem  Verhaltnis  zu  Ciceros  Blichern  De  natura 
deorum  (Dissert,  inaug.),  Gera,  1870.  Concerning  the  models  and  «fontes»  of 
the  Dialogue  cf.  Th.  Keim,  Celsus'  Wahres  Wort,  Zurich,  1873,  pp.  151  — 168 ; 
G.  Losche,  in  Jahrb.  fur  prot.  Theol.  (1882),  viii.  168—178;  P.  de  Ftlice, 
Etude  sur  1'Octavius  de  Minucius  Felix  (These),  Blois,  1880.  R.  Kiihn,  Der 
Octavius  des  Minucius  Felix,  eine  heidnisch-philosophische  Auffassung  vom 
Christentum,  Leipzig,  1882.  Against  Kiihn  cf.  O.  Grillnbcrger ,  in  Jahrb. 
fur  Philos.  u.  spekul.  Theol.  (1889),  iii.  104 — 118,  146—161,  260 — 269; 
B.  Seiller,  De  sermone  Minuciano  (Progr.),  Vienna,  1893.  There  is  an  ex 
haustive  bibliography  of  «Octavius»  in  J.  P.  Waltzing,  Bibliographic  raisonnee 
de  Minucius  Felix,  in  Museon  beige  (1902),  vi.  216 — 261.  Minucius  Felix, 
Octavius,  in  usum  lectionum  suarum,  ed.  J.  P.  Waltzing,  Louvain,  1903. 
Octavius,  rec.  et  praefatus  est  H,  Boenig,  Leipzig,  1903.  Cf.  O.  Boiler  o, 
«L' Octavius »  de  M.  Minucio  Felice  e  le  sue  relazioni  con  la  coltura  classica, 
in  Rivista  filosofica,  1903;  C.  Synnerberg,  Randbemerkungen  zu  Minucius 
Felix,  Helsingfors-Berlin,  1903,  ii;  G.  Bossier,  L'Octavius  de  Minucius  Felix, 
in  La  fin  du  paganisme,  3.  ed.,  Paris,  1898,  i.  261 — 289;  F.  X.  Burger,  Uber 
das  Verhaltnis  des  Minucius  Felix  zu  dem  Philosophen  Seneca  (Dissert.), 
Miinchen,  1904;  G.  Thiancourt,  Les  premiers  apologistes  chretiens  a  Rome 
et  les  traites  philosophiques  de  Ciceron,  Paris,  1904. 

2.  AUTHORSHIP  AND  DATE.  We  know  no  more  of  the  events  of 
the  author's  life.  He  tells  us  himself  (cc.  1—4)  that  in  his  later  years 
only  had  he  come  forth  «from  deepest  obscurity  into  the  light  of  wis 
dom  and  truth ».  Lactantius1  seems  to  suppose  that  Minucius  preceded 
Tertullian ;  Jerome 2,  on  the  contrary,  is  surely  of  the  opinion  that 
Tertullian  wrote  previously  to  Minucius.  There  is  indeed  a  close 
resemblance  between  the  «Octavius»  and  the  «Apologeticum»  of 
Tertullian,  written  in  197.  We  believe  with  Ebert,  Schwenke,  Reck, 
and  others  that  it  is  Tertullian  who  made  use  of  Minucius,  and  not, 
as  earlier  writers  (and  recently  Massebieau)  have  held,  Minucius  who 
used  the  writings  of  Tertullian.  Still  less  tenable  is  the  theory  of 
Hartel  and  Wilhelm  that  we  must  suppose  a  third  source  common 
to  both,  but  no  longer  discoverable.  There  are  other  evidences  of 
the  priority  of  Minucius.  Pronto  of  Cirta,  who  died  after  175,  must 
have  been  alive,  or  at  least  a  very  well-known  personality,  at  the  time 
of  the  composition  of  «Octavius»  (cc.  9,  6;  31,  2).  A  reliable  terminus 
ad  quern  is  the  tractate  of  Cyprian  Quod  idola  dii  non  sint,  written 
perhaps  in  248,  and  in  which  the  work  of  Minucius  is  copiously  drawn 

1  Div.  inst.,  v.    i,   22;   cf.   i.    n,   55. 

2  De  viris  illustr.,  cc.  53,   58;  Ep.   70,   5. 


upon.  The  «Octavius»  may  have  been  written  at  the  beginning  of  the 
reign  of  Commodus  (180 — 192).  There  is  no  reason  for  admitting 
with  de  Felice  and  Schanz,  an  earlier  date,  e.  g.  the  reign  of  An 
toninus  Pius.  On  the  other  hand,  Neumann  is  quite  arbitrary  when 
he  brings  down  the  date  of  composition  to  the  reign  of  Philippus 
Arabs  (244 — 249);  still  more  so  is  Schultze  when  he  attributes  it  to 
the  beginning  of  the  fourth  century.  The  use  of  the  work  by 
Cyprian  is  sufficient  to  exclude  both  of  these  hypotheses. 

For  the  date  of  composition  cf.  A.  Ebert,  in  Abhandlungen  der  phil.- 
hist.  Klasse  der  kgl.  sachs.  Gesellsch.  der  Wissensch.  (1870),  v.  319 — 420; 
W.  Hartely  in  Zeitschr.  fur  die  osterreich.  Gymnasien  (1869),  xx.  348 — 368; 
V.  Schultze,  in  Jahrb.  fur  prot.  Theol.  (1881),  vii.  485 — 506;  P.  Schwenke, 
ib.  (1883),  ix.  263—294;  F.  X.  Reck,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1886),  Ixviii. 
64—114;  Fr.  Wilhelm,  in  Breslauer  philolog.  Abhandlungen  (1887),  ii.  i; 
M.  L.  Massebieau,  in  Revue  de  1'hist.  des  religions  (1887),  xv.  316—346; 
K.  J.  Neumann,  Der  romische  Staat  und  die  allgemeine  Kirche,  Leipzig, 
1890,  i.  241  if.  250  if. ;  M,  Schanz y  in  Rhein.  Museum  fur  Philol.,  new  series 
(1895),  L.  114 — 136;  E.  Nor  den  y  in  Index  lect.  Gryphiswald.  per  sem.  aest. 
a.  1897  ;  H.Boenig,  in  a  programme  of  the  Gymnasium  of  Konigsberg,  1897. 

3.  THE  TREATISE  «DE  FATO».  Jerome  was  acquainted  with  a 
work  current  under  the  name  of  Minucius,  entitled  De  fato  vel  contra 
mathematicos.  He  doubted  its  authenticity  because  of  the  diversity 
of  style1.  It  is  true  that  in  the  «Octavius»  Minucius  does  promise 
(c.  36,  2)  a  work  De  fato.  Possibly  his  own  words  caused  an 
homonymous  work  of  some  other  writer  to  be  fathered  upon  him. 



§  25.     Gnostic  Literature. 

I.  INTRODUCTION.  The  apologetic  literature  was  one  result  of 
the  conflict  between  heathenism  and  Christianity.  But  even  while 
the  Apostles  lived,  the  Church  came  in  contact  with  another  formi 
dable  enemy  known  as  heresy.  It  did  not  dispute  with  her  the 
right  to  exist,  but  it  threatened  the  purity  and  integrity  of  her  apo 
stolic  faith.  It  is  of  importance,  therefore,  that  a  brief  summary  of 
the  literary  labours  of  heretics  should  precede  an  account  of  the  anti- 
heretical  literature. 

The  most  influential  of  the  primitive  heresies  was  Gnosticism. 
It  aimed  at  undermining  the  entire  structure  of  Christian  faith,  since, 
in  spite  of  the  contradictions  of  its  multiform  systems,  it  was  based 
on  the  hypothesis  of  a  dual  principle  and  rejected  the  doctrine  of 
creation.  Nevertheless,  it  made  much  headway  in  the  East  and  West, 

1  Ib. 

§    25.       GNOSTIC    LITERATURE.  73 

especially  among  the  cultured  classes,  and  brought  forth  a  literature 
of  more  than  ordinary  variety  and  richness.  With  the  exception  of 
a  few  works  preserved,  for  the  most  part,  in  Coptic,  this  literature 
has  perished,  and  is  known  to  us  only  from  the  few  fragments  that 
the  ecclesiastical  writers  inserted  in  their  polemical  writings  for  the 
purpose  of  confuting  their  heretical  opponents. 

The  principal  authorities  for  the  study  of  Gnosticism  and  its  literature 
are  the  Adversus  haereses  of  Irenaeus  ,  the  Philosophy  wena  of  Hippolytus, 
the  Panarion  or  Haereses  of  Epiphanius ,  and  the  Liber  de  haeresibus  of 
Philastrius.  For  critical  researches  on  the  sources  of  these  and  similar 
works  cf.  R.  A.  Lipsius,  Zur  Quellenkritik  des  Epiphanies,  Vienna,  1865; 
Die  Quellen  der  altesten  Ketzergeschichte  neu  untersucht,  Leipzig,  1875. 
Ad.  Harnack,  Zur  Quellenkritik  der  Geschichte  des  Gnostizismus,  Leipzig, 
1873;  Zur  Quellenkritik  der  Gesch.  des  Gnostizismus,  in  Zeitschr.  fur  die 
histor.  Theol.  (1874),  xliv.  143—226.  A.  Hilgenfeld,  Die  Ketzergeschichte 
des  Urchristentums  urkundlich  dargestellt,  Leipzig,  1884;  Judentum  und 
Judenchristentum,  Leipzig,  1886.  J.  Kunze,  De  historiae  gnosticismi  fon- 
tibus  novae  quaestiones  criticae,  Leipzig,  1894.  Collections  of  Gnostic 
fragments  are  found  in  J  E.  Grabe,  Spicilegium  Ss.  Patrum  ut  et  haereti- 
corum  saec.  p.  Chr.  n.  i.  ii.  et  iii.,  Oxford,  1698 — 1699;  2.  ed.  1714,  2  voll., 
passim ;  in  R.  Massuet's  edition  of  the  Adversus  haereses  of  Irenaeus,  Paris, 
1710,  pp.  349 — 376  (Migne,  PG.,  vii.  1263  —  1322);  in  A.  Stiereris  edition 
of  Irenaeus,  Leipzig,  1848 — 1853,  i.  899—971;  in  Hilgenfeld,  Die  Ketzer 
geschichte  des  Urchristentums,  passim.  For  the  most  complete  index  of 
Gnostic  writers  and  writings  cf.  Ad.  Harnack,  Gesch.  der  altchristl.  Literatur, 
i.  143 — 205;  ii.  i,  289 — 311,  533—541;  R.  Liechtenhahn,  Untersuchungen 
zur  koptisch-gnostischen  Literatur,  in  Zeitschr.  fur  wissenschaftl.  Theol. 
(1901),  xliv.  236—252;  Id.,  On  the  apocryphal  literature  of  the  Gnostics, 
in  Zeitschr.  fur  neutestamentl.  Wissensch.  (1902),  iii.  222—237  ;  E.  de  Faye, 
Introduction  a  1'etude  du  gnosticisme  au  2e  et  3°  siecle,  in  Revue  de  1'histoire 
des  religions  (1902),  and  Paris,  1903. 

2.  BASILIDES  AND  ISIDORUS.  It  would  seem  that  the  earliest 
chiefs  of  the  Gnostic  sects,  Dositheus,  Simon  Magus,  Cleobius,  Men- 
ander,  Cerinthus,  Nicolaus  (?),  Satornilus,  left  no  writings,  though 
at  an  early  date  certain  works  were  attributed  to  them  by  their 
followers.  Origen  *  is  aware  of  pretended  « books  of  Dositheus » ; 
Hippolytus2  bases  his  account  of  the  teachings  of  Simon  Magus  on 
a  supposed  « Great  revelation »  (dmxpaaiq  ^sfdtyj  current,  we  may  sup 
pose,  under  the  name  of  Simon.  Other  ecclesiastical  writers  were  of 
the  same  view.  Basilides,  who  taught  at  Alexandria  about  120 — 140, 
wrote  a  Gospel,  a  Commentary  on  the  same,  also  Psalms  or  Canticles 
(Odes).  His  Gospel  is  often  mentioned  by  name 3,  first  by  Origen, 
but  not  analysed  or  described.  It  was  probably  no  more  than  a  com 
pilation  made  for  his  own  purposes  from  the  four  Gospels.  According 
to  Agrippa  Castor  the  Commentary  of  Basilides  consisted  of  twenty- 
four  books4.  Some  fragments  of  it  are  quoted  by  Clement  of  Alexandria, 

1  Comm.  in  Joan.  xiii.   27:   pift^ouq  TOU  Aoa&iou.  '  Philos.,  vi.   7 — 20;   al. 

3  Orig.,  Horn.    I   in  Lucam.  4  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,   iv.    7,   7. 



Origen,  and  the  author  of  the  Acta  Archelai  et  Manetis.  Concerning 
the  Psalms  or  Odes  we  merely  know  the  fact  that  they  once  existed 1. 
The  nature  of  teachings  of  Basilides  is  variously  represented  by  an 
cient  writers ;  the  Basilides  of  Irenseus 2  seems  to  be  a  dualist  and 
an  emanationist,  while,  according  to  Hippolytus 3,  he  seems  to  be  an 
evolutionist  and  a  pantheist.  In  order  to  reconcile  these  descriptions 
of  the  Basilidian  system  it  is  customary  to  admit  two  phases  of  the 
same:  a  primitive  form  and  a  later  transformation.  It  still  remains 
doubtful  whether  the  prior  stage  of  the  heresy  were  that  set  forth 
by  Irenaeus  or  the  one  described  by  Hippolytus.  Salmon  and 
Stahelin  have  recently  maintained  that,  in  his  account  of  Basilides, 
Hippolytus  was  deceived,  as  he  was  on  other  occasions  (§  54,  3), 
by  Gnostic  forgeries ;  but  this  hypothesis  offers  too  violent  a  solution 
of  the  problem.  Isidore,  degitimate  son  and  disciple»  of  Basilides  4, 
left  at  least  three  works.  Their  titles,  according  to  Clement  of 
Alexandria ,  were :  On  an  adherent  soul 5  (rcspi  TrpocrpuouQ  fiufflQ  5 
Isidore  distinguished  between  a  rational  and  an  « appended »  soul); 
Ethica  (ijfttxd) 6 ,  perhaps  identical  with  the  xapaweTixd  that  Epi- 
phanius  attributes  to  him7,  and  an  Exposition  of  the  prophet  Parchor8 
(iqr^Ttxa  TOO  xpoyyTou  Ilapywp).  Parchor  was  one  of  the  prophets 
invented  by  Basilides  and  invoked  as  authorities.  Agrippa  Castor 
(1.  c.)  says  that  he  deliberately  chose  barbarian  names  for  them. 

The  fragments  of  the  works  of  Basilides  and  Isidore  are  collected  in 
Grabe  (see  p.  73,  Oxford,  1699),  ii.  35 — 43,  64 — 68;  Massuet  (see  p.  73) 
pp.  349  ff . ,  351  ff . ;  Stieren  1.  c. ,  pp.  901  flf . ,  907  ff . ;  Hilgenfeld  1.  c., 
pp.  207  ff .  \  213  ff.  They  have  received  special  attention  from  the  latter 
and  from  Th.  Zahn ,  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons  (1888  —  1889), 
i.  763 — 774.  J.  Kennedy,  Buddhist  Gnosticism.  The  System  of  Basilides, 
London,  1902.  Journal  of  the  Royal  Asiatic  Society. 

3.  THE  OPHITES  OR  « GNOSTICS*.  The  Ophites,  or  « Brethren  of 
the  Serpent»,  were  the  first  to  take  the  name  of  Gnostics  (fvcoartxoi). 
Even  in  the  second  century  they  had  branched  out  quite  extensively. 
Some  were  frankly  antinomian  in  their  principles ,  committed  the 
gravest  excesses,  and  indulged  in  abominable  orgies,  while  others 
embraced,  theoretically  at  least,  Encratite  doctrines.  The  ancient  heresio- 
logists  are  unanimous  in  declaring  that  several  of  these  sects  had  them 
selves  composed,  or  used  and  esteemed  highly,  very  many  works, 
chiefly  apocryphal,  but  current  under  the  name  of  biblical  characters. 
St.  Irenaeus  made  use  of  several  such  writings  for  his  account  of 
ancient  heresies ;  but  he  mentions  the  name  of  only  one  —  the  Gospel 
of  Judas,  a  book  of  the  Cainites9.  Hippolytus  is  wont  to  indicate  more 

1  Fragm.   Murat.,   c.   fin.  ;   Orig.   in  Job  xxi.    1 1    sq. 

2  Adv.  haer.,  i.   24,   3 — 7,   etc.  3  Philos.,  vii.   20 — 27;   al. 

4  Ib.,  vii.   20.  5   Clem.  AL,  Strom.,  ii.   20,    113.  6  Ib.,  iii.    i,   2. 

7  Haer.,   32,   3.  *  Clem.  Al.  1.  c.,  vi.  6,   53. 

9  Adv.   haer.,   i.  31,    i. 

§    25.       GNOSTIC    LITERATURE.  75 

particularly  the  sources  of  his  narrative,  and  Epiphanius  has  preserved 
the  titles  of  a  long  series  of  Ophitic  writings.  In  recent  times  some 
Ophitic  works  of  Encratite  tendencies  have  been  discovered  in  Coptic 
translations.  The  Pistis  Sophia,  edited  in  1851  by  Schwartze  and 
Petermann  from  a  fifth  or  sixth  century  Coptic  codex  (Askewianus) 
in  the  British  Museum,  is  a  specimen  of  such  heretical  literature.  It 
relates,  in  the  form  of  a  conversation  between  the  risen  Saviour  and 
his  male  and  female  disciples,  among  whom  Mary  Magdalen  is  pro 
minent,  the  fall  and  the  redemption  of  Pistis  Sophia,  a  being  from 
the  world  of  the  ./Eons.  The  vicissitudes  of  her  story  prefigure  the 
way  of  purification  for  mankind  through  penance.  Numerous  psalms 
(odes)  are  scattered  through  the  text;  apart  from  five  « Solomonic » 
psalms,  that  are  placed  on  a  level  with  the  psalms  of  David,  they 
seem  to  be  the  work  of  the  author.  In  its  present  form  the  Pistis 
Sophia  is  made  up  of  four  books,  and  was  very  probably  put 
together  in  the  second  half  of  the  third  century,  in  Egypt.  It  was 
formerly  erroneously  attributed  to  Valentine  (see  p.  76)  or  to  some 
later  member  of  his  school.  At  present  the  first  three  books  are 
by  many  identified  with  the  « Little  Questions  of  Mary»  (epwr^ffsn; 
Mapiaq  fuxpai)  that  Epiphanius  quotes1  as  a  book  of  the  «Gnostics»; 
the  fourth  book  is  apparently  of  an  earlier  date.  A  Coptic  papyrus- 
codex  of  Oxford  (Brucianus),  belonging  to  the  fifth  or  sixth  century, 
has  saved  from  loss  two  Ophite  works.  Their  content  was  made  known 
in  1891  by  Amelineau,  and  in  1892  by  Schmidt.  In  the  larger  one 
our  Lord  expounds  to  his  male  and  female  disciple  certain  cosmogonic 
speculations  and  gives  them  theologico-practical  instructions.  In  the 
smaller  one  he  illustrates  the  origin  and  evolution  of  the  world.  The 
text  of  both  codices,  however,  is  disfigured  by  gaps  and  breaks. 
According  to  Schmidt,  the  larger  codex  was  written  among  the 
Severians  2,  about  the  middle  of  the  third  century,  and  is  identical 
with  the  two  « Books  of  Jeu»  cited  in  Pistis  Sophia*.  The  smaller 
one  appears  to  be  of  very  remote  antiquity,  and  is  held  by  Schmidt 
to  be  a  book  of  the  Sethians  or  Archontici4  written  about  the 
middle  of  the  second  century.  His  arguments,  however,  are  open  to 
objections.  —  A  Coptic  papyrus  of  the  fifth  (?)  century,  acquired  in  1896 
for  the  Egyptian  Museum  in  Berlin,  includes  three  fragments  of  Gnostic 
origin.  They  are,  according  to  the  provisory  description  of  Schmidt: 
a  « Gospel  according  to  Mary»  (sdaffehov  xara  j\lo.ptdfj.,  with  the  sub 
title:  axoxpixpov  'Icodwou,  containing  mostly  revelations  to  John);  a 
« Wisdom  of  Jesus  Christ*  (oo<pia  "Ir^aolj  Xptarou ,  revelations  of  our 
Lord  after  His  death);  and  an  «Act  of  Peter»  (xpastQ  IHrpou,  a 
miraculous  healing  of  Peter's  own  daughter).  St.  Irenaeus  seems 

1  Haer.,   26,   8.  2  Epiph.,  Haer.,  45. 

3  Ed.  Sch-warlze  and  Petermann,  p.   245  sq.,   354. 

4  Epiph.,  1.   c.,  39 — 40. 


to  have  known  and  used  the  « Gospel  according  to  Mary»,  in  his 
description  of  the  Barbelo-Gnostics 1 ;  a  clearer  knowledge  will  be  pos 
sible  only  when  the  text  is  published. 

Pistis  Sophia.  Opus  gnostictim  Valentino  adiudicatum  e  codice  manu- 
scripto  Coptico  Londinensi  descripsit  et  latine  vertit  M.  G.  Schwartze.  Edidit 
y.  H.  Petermann,  Berlin,  1851.  K.  R.  Kostlin,  Das  gnostische  System  des 
Buches  Pistis  Sophia,  in  Theol.  Jahrbiicher  (1854),  xiii.  i — 104,  137  — 196. 
Ad.  Harnack,  Uber  das  gnostische  Buch  Pistis  Sophia,  in  Texte  und  Unter- 
suchungen  (1891),  vii.  2,  i — 114.  Cf.  also  the  writings  of  Schmidt  (mentioned 
below)  on  the  Papyrus  Brucianus.  The  edition  and  translation  of  this  codex 
by  AnUlineau  (Paris,  1891)  was  not  a  success;  the  same  may  be  said  of 
his  Comptes-rendus  concerning  the  contents  of  the  codex.  E.  Andersson, 
Compte-rendu  critique:  Amelineau:  fhVn?  2ocpta,  ouvrage  gnostique  de 
Valentin,  traduit  du  copte  en  franc, ais,  in  Sphinx,  1904,  pp.  237 — 253. 

The  editio  princeps  is,  we  may  remark,  that  of  C.  Schmidt,  Gnostische 
Schriften  in  koptischer  Sprache,  aus  dem  codex  Brucianus  herausgegeben, 
iibersetzt  nnd  bearbeitet  (Texte  und  Untersuchungen,  viii.  i  —  2),  Leipzig,  1892. 
Cf.  Schmidt,  in  Zeitschr.  fur  wissenschaftl.  Theol.  (1894),  xxxvii.  555 — 585. 

For  the  Berlin  papyrus  cf.  C.  Schmidt ,  Ein  vorirenaisches  gnostisches 
Originalwerk  in  koptischer  Sprache ,  in  Sitzungsberichte  der  kgl.  preuft. 
Akad.  der  Wissensch.,  Berlin,  1896,  pp.  839  —  847. 

C.  Schmidt,  Koptisch-gnostische  Schriften:  I.  Die  Pistis  Sophia;  II.  Die 
beiden  Biicher  des  Jeu;  III.  Unbekanntes  altgnostisches  Werk,  Berlin,  1905. 
(Griechisch-christliche  Schriftsteller.)  For  an  English  translation  of  Pistis 
Sophia,  made  from  the  German  of  C.  Schmidt 3  see  E.  R.  S.  Mead,  Frag 
ments  of  a  Faith  Forgotten,  London  and  Benares,  1900,  pp.  459 — 479; 
cf.  ib.  pp.  605 — 630,  a  full  bibliography  of  works  on  Gnosticism. 

4.  CARPOCRATIANS.  —  The  followers  of  Carpocrates  of  Alexandria 2 
consigned  to  various  works  their  peculiar   «Gnosis»  which  was  closely 
related  to  that  of  the  antinomian  group  of  the  Ophites.     Clement  of 
Alexandria  furnishes  some  particulars  concerning  one  of  these  works  3. 
He  tells  us  that  about  the  middle  of  the  second  century  Epiphanes, 
son  of  Carpocrates,  though  only  seventeen  years  of  age,  wrote  a  work 
«On  justice»  (nept  dtxatoavvyq)  in  which,  as  is  evident  from  the  cita 
tions  of  Clement,  he  advocated  a  thorough  communism,  even  of  women. 

U.  Benigni,  I  socialisti  alessandrini  del  II.  secolo,  in  Bessarione  (1896 
to  1897),  i.  597  —  601. 

5.  VALENTINE  AND  VALENTINIANS.  --  Valentine  is  held  to  be  the 
most  intellectual  champion  of  the  hellenizing  Gnosis,  which  followed 
in  the  footsteps  of  Plato  and  taught  a  parallelism  between  the  ideal 
world  above  (ittyp&fjiaj  and  the  lower  world  of  phenomena  (xlvw/jta, 
botipyfjLa) .     The    connecting   link  is   the    xdrco    ao<pia    or  Achamoth, 
a    being    fallen   from    the    avto    aowia ,    last    of   the  /Eons,    into    the 
visible  world.   At  the  moment  of  his  baptism  the  /Eon  Soter  (or  Jesus) 
descended  upon  the  Christ  who  had  been  promised  and  sent  by  the 
Demiurge  or  World-Creator.    Valentine  was  an  Egyptian  and  had  been 

1  Adv.   haer.,  i.   29.  2  Ib.,  i.   25,  4   5.  3  Strom.,  iii.   2,   5—9. 

§    25.       GNOSTIC    LITERATURE.  JJ 

initiated  into  Greek  science  at  Alexandria.  From  135  to  160  (approxima 
tely)  he  sojourned  at  Rome,  and  there  took  place  his  final  apostasy 
from  the  Church.  Wounded  in  his  pride  at  being  an  unsuccessful  can 
didate  for  the  papacy,  in  revenge  he  took  up  the  role  of  an  arch- 
heretic.  The  date  of  his  death  is  uncertain.  Clement  of  Alexandria  has 
preserved  some  fragments  of  his  Letters  and  Homilies l.  Hippolytus 2 
has  saved  a  remnant  of  the  Psalms  of  Valentine 3.  The  Sophia 
Valentini  in  Tertullian 4  is  not  a  work  of  this  Gnostic,  but  rather  his 
/Eon  Sophia.  According  to  Irenaeus,  the  Valentinians  made  use  of  a 
« Gospel  of  Truth »,  which  had  nothing  in  common  with  the  canonical 
Gospels5.  -  -  During  his  life,  apparently,  the  school  of  Valentine 
divided  into  two  branches:  known  respectively  as  the  Italian  or 
Western  and  the  Eastern  branch.  The  Italici  declared  the  body  of 
the  Saviour  to  be  of  a  psychic  character,  while  the  Easterns  main 
tained  that  is  was  pneumatic.  The  principal  writers  of  the  Italian 
school  were  Heracleon  and  Ptolemy,  both  personal  disciples  of  Valen 
tine.  Heracleon  composed  a  Commentary  on  St.  John,  from  which 
Origen,  in  his  Commentary  on  that  evangelist,  has  taken  about  fifty 
citations,  partly  verbal  and  partly  paraphrased.  Two  other  exegetical 
passages  of  Heracleon  are  cited  by  Clement  of  Alexandria6.  As  a  rule 
the  exegesis  of  Heracleon  is  not  only  very  arbitrary,  but  also  absurd. 
Some  extracts  from  Ptolemy  are  found  in  Irenaeus 7,  including  an  ex 
position  of  the  prologue  of  the  Gospel  of  John.  We  owe  to  Epi- 
phanius 8  the  preservation  of  the  complete  text  of  a  Letter  of  Ptolemy 
to  Flora,  a  Christian  lady,  in  which  he  undertakes  to  prove  that  the 
Law  of  the  Old  Testament  was  the  work  not  of  the  Supreme  God, 
but  of  the  World-Creator  or  Demiurge.  The  Syriac  fragment  of  a 
Letter  of  St.  Irenaeus  to  Pope  Victor  exhibits  a  certain  Florinus, 
at  one  time  a  priest  of  the  Roman  Church,  in  the  character  of  a 
Christian  writer  (cf.  §  34,  4).  The  chief  literary  remains  of  the 
Eastern  branch  of  the  Valentinians  are  the  Excerpta  ex  scriptis 
Theodoti :  ex  TCUV  Osodoroo  xal  TTJQ  dvarohxrjQ  xaAouuevyQ  dtdavxaXiac, 
xara  robe,  O&afavrfoou  ypovo'jQ  imrofiai.  They  have  come  down 
under  the  name  of  Clement  of  Alexandria,  and  are  an  account  of 
the  teachings  of  the  Oriental  Valentinians,  together  with  excerpts 
from  the  writings  of  an  otherwise  unknown  Theodotus  and  some 
anonymous  Valentinians. 

The   fragments   of  the    writings    of  Valentine    may  be   seen   in    Grabe 
1.  c.,  ii.  43—58;  Massuct  1.  c.,  pp.  352— 355;  Stieren  1.  c.,  pp.  909—916; 

1  Strom.,   ii.  8,   36;   iv.    13,   896".;   al.  2  Philos.,  vi.  37. 

3   Terl.,  De  came  Christi,   c.    17,   20;   al.  4  Adv.   Valent.,  c.   2. 

5  Veritatis  evangelium,    in  nihilo    conveniens    apostolorum    evangeliis :    Adv.   haer.. 
iii.    1 1,   9. 

6  Strom.,   iv.   9,    70  ff. ;   Eclog.  proph.,   c.   25.  7  Adv.  haer.,   i.    1—8,    5. 
8  Haer.,   33,   5—7. 


Hilgenfeld  1.  c.,  pp.  292  —  307.  The  fragments  of  Heracleon  are  in  Grabe, 
pp.  80  —  117,  236;  Massuct,  pp.  362  —  376;  Stieren,  pp.  936  —  971  ;  Hilgenfeld, 
pp.  472  —  505;  cf.  A.  E.  Brooke,  The  Fragments  of  Heracleon  (Texts  and 
Studies,  i.  4),  Cambridge,  1891.  On  Heracleon  see  G.  Salmon,  in  Diet,  of 
Christian  Biography,  London,  1880,  ii.  897  —  900.  The  Letter  of  Ptolemy  to 
Flora  is  in  Grabe,  pp.  68—80;  Massitet,  pp.  357  —  361;  Stieren,  pp.  922  —  936; 
Hilgenfeld,  in  Zeitschr.  fiir  wissenschaftl.  Theol.  (1881),  xxiv.  214  —  230;  cf. 
Hilgenfeld,  Die  Ketzergesch.  des  Urchristentums,  p.  346,  note  580.  An 
unsuccessful  attempt  was  made  by  Stieren  to  disprove  the  authenticity  and 
the  unity  of  the  Letter  of  Ptolemy  to  Flora.  A.  Stieren,  De  Ptolemaei  Valen- 
tiniani  ad  Floram  epistola,  Part.  I,  Jenae,  1843.  Cf.  Ad.  Harnack  ,  Der 
Brief  des  Ptolemaus  an  die  Flora.  Eine  relig.  Kritik  am  Pentateuch  im 
2.  Jahrhundert,  in  Sitzungsberichte  der  kgl.  preuft.  Akad.  der  Wissensch., 
Berlin,  1902,  pp.  507  —  545.  G.  Heinrid,  Die  valentinianische  Gnosis  und 
die  Heilige  Schrift,  Berlin,  1871;  Zahn,  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons, 
i.  718  —  763:  «Der  Schriftgebrauch  in  der  Schule  Valentins»  ;  cf.  ii.  953  —  961; 
F.  Torm,  Valentinianismen,  historic  og  laere,  Copenhagen,  1901  ;  G.  Mer- 
cati  ,  Note  di  litteratura  biblica  e  cristiana  antica  (Studi  e  Testi,  Rome, 
1901),  v.  88  sq.  In  this  work  is  cited  from  a  certain  Anthimus  a  passage 
of  an  otherwise  unknown  work  of  Valentine  (-spl  TU>V  Tpioiv  cpujcwv). 

6.  BARDESANES  AND  HARMONIUS.  According  to  Oriental  writers 
the  Syrian  Bardesanes  (Bar  Daisan)  was  born  of  noble  parents  at 
Edessa,  July  ii.,  154,  proclaimed  himself  founder  of  a  new  religion 
1  80  —  190,  fled  to  Armenia  in  216  or  217,  after  the  conquest  of 
Edessa  by  Caracalla,  returned  later  to  his  native  land  and  died  there 
222  —  223.  He  was  originally  a  Valentinian  of  the  Eastern  type, 
but  soon  developed  a  religious  system  of  his  own  that  is  rightly 
looked  on  as  a  foreshadowing  of  Manichaeism.  Certain  hymns  of 
Ephraem  Syrus  show  that  Bardesanes  devoted  himself  particularly 
to  astrological  and  cosmogonic  speculations  *,  and  that  he  maintained 
against  Marcion  (see  p.  79)  the  unity  of  God  ;  \vhile  at  the  same  time 
he  introduced  a  plurality  of  gods.  His  son  Harmonius,  according  to 
Sozomen2,  added  to  the  teachings  of  his  father  the  opinions  of 
Greek  philosophers  concerning  the  soul,  the  origin  and  end  of  the 
body,  and  the  second  birth.  Ephraem  Syrus  relates  3  that  Bardesanes 
wrote  150  Psalms  and  composed  the  melodies  for  the  same,  but 
Sozomen  (1.  c.)  says  that  Harmonius  was  the  parent  of  Syriac  hymno- 
logy.  Probably  the  latter  collected  and  edited  his  father's  poetical 
works,  and  added  thereto  something  of  his  own.  It  is  possible  that 
some  fragments  of  the  Psalms  of  Bardesanes  are  yet  to  be  seen  in 
the  poetical  remnants  of  the  apocryphal  «Acts  of  Saint  Thomas  » 
(cf.  §  30,  8).  Polemical  and  apologetic  works  of  Bardesanes  were 
known  to  Eusebius,  Epiphanius,  and  Theodoret4.  The  polemical 
works  were  dialogues,  written  against  Marcion,  and  were  translated 
from  Syriac  into  Greek.  The  dialogue  «On  (or  Against)  Fate»  (xep} 
or  y.a-ca  eipapfiivyq)  is  mentioned  by  the  three  Greek  writers  just 

1  Serm.   adv.  haer.,    i  —  56.  2  Hist,  eccl.,   iii.    16.  3  L.   c.,  sermo    53. 

4  Ens.,  Hist,  eccl.,  iv.   30.    Epiph.,  Haer.,  56,  i.    Theodor.,  Haeret.  fab.  comp.  i.  22. 

§    25.       GNOSTIC    LITERATURE.  79 

quoted;  Eusebius  took  from  it1  two  long  passages.  It  is  yet  ex 
tant  in  Syriac  under  the  title  «Book  of  the  Laws  of  the  Countries». 
In  this  work  Bardesanes,  the  chief  interlocutor,  proves  that  the 
peculiar  characters  of  men  are  not  affected  by  the  position  of  the 
stars  at  their  birth,  since  various  countries  have  the  same  laws, 
customs,  and  usages.  However,  the  dialogue  does  not  pretend  to  be 
written  by  Bardesanes,  but  by  his  disciple  Philip.  In  later  Oriental 
works  we  meet  mention  of  other  books  of  Bardesanes.  Moses  of 
Chorene2  attributes  to  him  a  history  of  the  kings  of  Armenia.  Ibn 
Abi  Jakub,  in  his  literary  history  known  as  «Fihrist»,  attributes  to 
Bardesanes  a  work  on  light  and  darkness ,  another  on  the  spiritual 
nature  of  truth,  and  a  third  on  the  movable  and  the  immovable. 

A.  Merx,  Bardesanes  von  Edessa,  nebst  einer  Untersuchung  liber  das 
Verhaltnis  der  clementinischen  Rekognitionen  zu  dem  Buche  der  Gesetze 
der  Lander,  Halle,  1863.  A.  Hilgenfeld,  Bardesanes,  der  letzte  Gnostiker, 
Leipzig,  1864.  Cf.  also  the  articles  of  F.  J.  A.  ffort,  in  the  Dictionary 
of  Christ.  Biography,  i.  250 — 260,  of  J.  M.  Schonf elder ,  in  the  Kirchen- 
lexikon  of  Wetzer  and  Welte,  2.  ed.,  i.  1995 — 2002,  and  of  G.  Kriiger,  in 
the  Realenzykl.  fur  prot.  Theol.  und  Kirche,  ii.  400 — 403.  For  the  «Book 
of  the  Laws  of  Countries »  (Syriac  and  English),  cf.  W.  Cureton,  Spicilegium 
Syriacum,  Lond.,  1855,  pp.  i  —  21,  21 — 34.  There  is  a  German  translation 
in  Merx  1.  c.,  pp.  25 — 55.  It  has  also  been  translated  from  Syriac  into 
French  by  F.  Nau ,  Bardesanes,  astrologue,  Le  livre  des  lois  des  pays, 
Paris,  1899. 

7.  MARCION  AND  APELLES.  Marcion  was  the  son  of  a  bishop  of 
Sinope  in  Pontus.  About  the  year  140  he  appeared  in  Rome  as  a 
wealthy  navigator.  Though  he  had  been  excommunicated  by  his  father 
for  licentious  conduct,  he  managed  to  secure  a  reception  among  the 
Christians  of  that  city.  A  few  years  later  (about  144),  he  was  no 
longer  in  communion  with  the  authorities  of  the  Roman  church,  and 
was  bent  on  founding  a  church  under  his  own  auspices.  Owing  to 
his  success  in  this  undertaking,  the  Pontic  skipper  affected  both  his 
contemporaries  and  posterity  more  profoundly  than  any  heresiarch  of 
the  second  century.  Beginning  with  a  strict  adherence  to  the  Syrian 
Gnostic  Cerdon,  then  resident  at  Rome,  he  excogitated  a  doctrinal 
system  based  upon  the  irreconcilability  of  justice  and  grace,  the  law 
and  the  gospel,  Judaism  and  Christianity.  Because  of  this  irrecon 
cilable  antithesis,  two  principles  must  be  admitted,  both  eternal  and 
uncreated,  a  good  God  and  a  just  but  wicked  God;  the  latter  is 
the  Creator  of  this  world3.  Moreover,  not  only  should  we  reject 
the  Old  Testament  as  promulgated  by  the  just  and  wicked  God, 
but  we  must  look  on  the  New  Testament  as  corrupted  by  the 
primitive  apostles,  who  interpolated  it  with  their  Jewish  ideas.  Only 
Paul,  the  enemy  of  Judaism,  and  his  disciple  Luke,  were  faithful 
interpreters  of  the  teachings  of  the  Lord.  Consequently,  Marcion 

1  Praep.  evang.,  vi.    10.  2  Hist.  Arm.,  ii.  66.  3   Tert.,  Adv.  Marc.,  i.  6. 


gave  to  his  disciples  a  new  Sacred  Scripture  in  two  parts:  an 
stiaffsAioy  and  an  d.noaro)dy.ov.  This  Marcionite  «Evangelium»  was 
a  mutilated  and  variously  disfigured  production.  The  «Apostolicum» 
included  ten  manipulated  letters  of  St.  Paul:  Galatians,  First  and  Second 
Corinthians,  Romans,  First  and  Second  Thessalonians,  Laodiceans  = 
Ephesians,  Colossians,  Philippians,  and  Philemon.  With  the  aid  of 
several  opponents  of  Marcion  it  is  possible  to  reconstruct  in  large 
measure  the  original  text  of  this  Marcionite  Bible1,  which  enjoyed 
canonical  authority  among  the  followers  of  the  sect.  Ephraem  Syrus 
is  witness  to  a  Syriac  version  of  it;  by  the  time  of  Tertullian  it  had 
already  been  frequently  « reform ed »  2.  To  justify  his  recension  of  the 
Bible,  Marcion  composed  a  large  work  known  as  Antitheses  (dvn- 
MOSIQ)  in  which  he  arranged,  in  parallel  columns,  sentences  of  the 
Old  and  the  New  Testament,  and  from  their  pretended  antilogies  con 
cluded  that  the  two  component  parts  of  the  Bible  of  the  Church  were 
irreconcilable.  «Hae  sunt»,  says  Tertullian,  « antitheses  Marcionis,  id 
est  contrariae  oppositiones ,  quae  conantur  discordiam  evangelii  cum 
lege  committere,  ut  ex  diversitate  sententiarum  instrumenti  diversi- 
tatem  quoque  argumententur  deorum»  3.  According  to  other  state 
ments  of  Tertullian  and  of  Ephraem  Syrus  the  work  of  Marcion  con 
tained  not  only  an  exposition  of  the  principles  of  Marcionitic  Chris 
tianity,  but  also  a  more  or  less  detailed  commentary  on  his  own 
Bible.  It  seems  that  Marcion  discussed  in  a  Letter  the  reason  of 
his  abandonment  of  the  Church4.  -  -  Among  his  disciples  Apelles 
was  prominent  as  a  writer.  He  turned  from  the  dualism  of  Marcion 
to  a  certain  monism,  maintaining  that  the  World-Creator  was  himself 
created  by  the  good  God.  In  his  «Syllogisms»  fffMo^iff/Jiol)  he 
undertook  to  prove  that  in  the  books  of  Moses  there  was  nothing 
but  lies;  hence  they  could  not  have  God  as  their  author.  It  was 
an  extensive  work,  as  may  be  imagined  from  the  fact  that  the 
criticism  of  the  biblical  account  of  the  fall  of  the  first  man  was 
found  in  its  thirty-eighth  book5.  In  his  « Manifestations »  (tpavs-- 
POMJ&Q)  Apelles  described  the  pretended  revelations  of  Philumena,  a 
Roman  female  visionary6.  The  « Gospel  of  Apelles»  first  mentioned 
by  Jerome  7  was  probably  nothing  more  than  a  later  elaboration  or 
a  new  recension  of  the  Gospel  of  Marcion. 

A.  Hilgenfeld,  Die  Ketzergeschichte  des  Urchristentums,  Leipzig,  1884, 
pp.  316 — 341:  «Cerdon  und  Marcion »;  pp.  522 — 543:  «Marcion  und  Ap- 
pelles».  A.  Harnack,  De  Appellis  gnosi  monarchica,  Leipzig,  1874.  H.  U. 
Meyboom,  Marcion  en  de  Marcionieten,  Leyden,  1888.  For  earlier  tenta- 

1  Especially   Tert.,  1.  c.,  v.    Epiph.,  Haer.,  42,  and  the  author  of  Dialog.  Adamantii 
de  recta  in  Deum  fide. 

2  Tert.,  1.  c.,  iv.   5;   cf.  De  praescr.   haeret.,   c.  42.  3  Adv.  Marc.,   i.    19. 

4   Tert.,  1.  c.,  i.    I  ;  iv.  4 ;   De  came  Christi,  c.   2.          5  Ambros.,  De  parad.,  v.  28. 

6  Tert.,  De  praescr.  haeret.,   c.  30 ;  De  carne  Christi,   c.  6 ;   al. 

7  Comm.   in  Matth.,  prol. 

§    26.       THE   JUDAISTIC    LITERATURE.  8 1 

tive  reconstructions  of  the  Gospel  of  Marcion  cf.  A.Hahn,  1823  and  1832; 
Hilgenfeld,  1850;  G.  Volckmar,  1852;  also  the  work  of  W.  C.  van  Manen 
(1887)  on  the  reconstruction  of  Galatians  according  to  Marcion.  All  such  efforts 
are  more  or  less  antiquated  since  the  work  of  Zahn,  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl. 
Kanons,  ii.  409 — 529,  «Marcions  Neues  Testament»  (an  essay  in  text- 
reconstruction);  cf.  ib. ,  i.  587 — 718,  a  criticism  of  the  Bible  of  Marcion. 
A.  Hahn,  Antitheses  Marcionis  gnostici,  liber  deperditus,  nunc  quoad  eius  fieri 
potuit  restitutus,  Konigsberg,  1823.  A.  Harnack,  Sieben  neue  Bruchstiicke 
der  Syllogismen  des  Apelles  (from  Ambros.,  De  parad.,  vi.  30—32;  vii.  35; 
viii.  38,  40,  41),  in  Texte  und  Untersuchungen  (1890),  vi.  3,  in — 120;  cf. 
Harnack,  ib.,  xx.;  new  series  (1900),  v.  3,  93 — 100.  F.  J.  J.  Jackson, 
Christian  Difficulties  in  the  Second  and  Twentieth  Centuries.  Study  of 
Marcion  and  his  relation  to  modern  thought,  London,  1903.  See  G.  Salmon, 
Marcion,  in  Diet,  of  Christian  Biography,  London,  1880,  iii.  817 — 824. 

8.  THE  ENCRATITES.  These  heretics  rejected  as  sinful  both  ma 
trimony  and  the  use  of  meat  and  wine.  The  chief  spokesmen  of  their 
doctrines  in  the  second  century  were  Tatian  (§  18)  and  Julius  Cas- 
sianus.  About  the  year  170  the  latter  published  at  least  two  works: 
one  entitled  Ifyrynxd  in  several  books1,  and  the  other  «On  con 
tinence  or  celibacy»  (x£pi  lyxparzcaQ  rj  its  pi  ZLtvo'jyiaq)  2. 

Hilgenfeld,  Die  Ketzergesch.  des  Urchristentums,  pp.  546 — 549.  Zahn, 
Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons,  ii.  632 — 636,  750. 

§  26.     The  Judaistic  Literature. 

1.  THE  EBIONITES.     The  heretical  group  known  as  Ebionites  saw 
in   Jesus    a   son    of  Joseph,    and    denied    His    birth    of   the   Blessed 
Virgin  and    the  Holy  Ghost3.     Several  of  their  authoritative   books 
are  mentioned  by  Epiphanius4,  among  others  «the  so-called  Journeys 
of  Peter »   (see    below)  and    the  Gospel    of   the  Ebionites  (§  29,    3). 
Toward   the   end    of  the   second    century   the  Ebionite  Symmachus, 
known    also    for   his    translation    of  the  Old    Testament   into  Greek, 
wrote    an    exegetical    work    in    which    he    attacked    the    Gospel    of 
St.  Matthew 5.     It  is  supposed  that  this  work  is  identical  with   that 
known  to  the  Syrian  writer  Ebed  Jesu  (f  1318)  as  Liber  Symmachi 
de  distinctione  praeceptorum. 

G.  Mercati,  L'  eta  di  Simmaco  1'  interprete  e  S.  Epifanio,  Modena,  1892. 

2.  THE  ELKESAITES.     These   heretics,    known    also    as  Sampsaei, 
professed    an    odd  mixture  of  Judaism,   Christianity  and  Heathenism. 
Epiphanius  tells  us 6   that   they    possessed    two  symbolic    books,  one 
under   the   name   of  Elxai,    founder    of  the  sect,    and   another  under 
the  name  of  his  brother  Jexai.     Both  Epiphanius7  and  Hippolytus8 
quote    several    passages    from    the  Book  of  Elxai.      The    date    of  its 

1  Clem.   Al.,  Strom.,   i.   21,    101  ;   cf.   Hier.,   Comm.  in   Gal.   ad  vi.    1 8. 

2  Clem.  Al.,   Strom.,   iii.    13,   91—92. 

3  Iren.,  Adv.  haer.,   iii.   21,    I  ;  v.    I,   3.  4  Haer.   30. 

5  Eus.,  Hist,   eccl.,  vi.    17;   cf.   Hier.,  De  viris  illustr.,   c.   54. 

6  Haer.   53,    i.  7  Haer.    19,    I   ff . ;   53,    i.  8  Philos.,   ix.    13  — 17. 


composition    would   be    about   the   year    100,    according   to   Hilgen- 
feld ;   others  locate  it,  more  accurately,  about  the  year  200. 

The  fragments  of  the  Book  of  Elxai  are  collected  in  Hilgenfeld,  Novum 
Testamentum  extra  canonem  rec.,  2.  ed.,  Leipzig,  1881,  fasc.  iii.  227 — 240; 
cf.  Id.,  Judentum  und  Judenchristentum,  Leipzig,  1886,  pp.  103  ff. 

Under  this  title  (KtyfiivTia)  are  usually  collected  certain  writings 
that  treat  of  the  life  of  St.  Clement  of  Rome,  and  pretend  to  have 
been  written  by  him.  They  are  the  Recognitions  of  Clement,  the 
Homilies,  and  two  Letters.  The  ten  books  of  the  Recognitions  are 
no  longer  extant  in  the  original  Greek,  but  only  in  a  Latin  version 
made  by  Rufinus  of  Aquileia,  and  in  a  Syriac  revision.  According 
to  the  Latin  version  Clement  was  much  troubled  in  his  youth  by 
doubts  concerning  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  the  origin  of  the 
world,  and  similar  matters.  Hearing  that  the  Son  of  God  had 
appeared  in  Judaea  he  made  a  journey  to  the  East,  where  he  met 
the  Apostle  Peter,  from  whom  he  received  the  desired  enlightenment. 
Thereupon  he  became  his  disciple  and  accompanied  him  on  his 
journeys.  At  Caesarea  he  was  witness  to  the  dispute  of  St.  Peter 
with  Simon  Magus  (Recog.  ii.  20 — iii.  48).  Somewhat  later,  Cle 
ment  made  known  to  the  Apostle  the  circumstances  of  his  early  life. 
When  he  was  five  years  of  age,  his  mother,  Matthidia,  a  relative  of 
the  Emperor,  had  fled  from  Rome  as  the  result  of  a  dream,  taking 
with  her  his  two  elder  brothers,  the  twins  Faustinus  and  Faustus. 
They  were  sought  for  in  vain ;  indeed,  his  father  Faustinianus  never 
returned  from  the  toilsome  and  fruitless  journey  he  undertook  in  search 
of  wife  and  children  (vii.  8— 10).  But  the  long  separated  family  was 
now  to  be  re-united.  During  an  excursion  from  Antharadus  to  the 
island  of  Aradus,  St.  Peter  discovered  in  a  beggar  woman  the  mother 
of  his  disciple.  Two  other  disciples  and  companions  of  the  Apostle 
made  themselves  known  as  Faustinus  and  Faustus,  the  brothers  of 
Clement.  Finally  the  father  Faustinianus  was  discovered  by  St.  Peter. 
It  is  to  this  happy  ending  of  the  story  that  the  work  owes  its 
peculiar  title:  Recognitiones  =  dvcrfvcoaeu;,  dvafvwptffjuol.  It  was  also 
known  to  antiquity  by  other  titles,  among  them  Uspiodot  Uirpou  or 
A/^ucvrtfC,  Itinerarium,  Historia,  Gesta  Clementis.  The  chief  scope 
of  the  work,  however,  was  not  the  story  of  the  vicissitudes  of 
St.  Clement,  but  rather  the  recommendation  of  certain  teachings  of 
St.  Peter  that  are  interwoven  with  the  narrative.  The  book  is  really 
a  religious  romance.  In  the  Latin  version  the  didactic  exposition  of 
the  original  is  reproduced  in  a  very  incomplete  way.  In  a  preliminary 
remark  Rufinus  says  that  there  were  current  two  recensions  of  the 
Greek  text  (in  graeco  eiusdem  operis  dvaYvwaecov,  hoc  est  recogni- 
tionum,  duas  editiones  haberi),  and  that  in  both  were  found  theological 

§    26.       THE   JUDAISTIC    LITERATURE.  83 

discussions  (quaedam  de  ingenito  Deo  genitoque  disserta  et  de  aliis 
nonnullis),  that  he  had  thought  it  proper  to  omit.  By  a  second 
recension  of  the  workRufinus  doubtless  means  the  Homilies  (bfiiXiat),  the 
Greek  text  of  which  we  possess.  They  are  twenty  in  number,  and  are 
prefaced  by  two  Letters  of  Peter  and  Clement,  respectively,  to  James 
of  Jerusalem.  In  the  first  letter  Peter  requests  James  to  keep  rigorously 
secret  the  discourses  he  has  sent  him  (T&V  IIJLOJV  xypufjutdTcoV  ac, 
HnefA<l>d  GOI  JcfiAovQ,  c.  ij.  In  the  second  Clement  informs  James  that 
he  had  received  episcopal  consecration  from  Peter  a  little  before  the 
latter's  death.  He  had  also  been  instructed  to  send  to  James  a 
lengthy  report  concerning  his  past  life;  he  performs  this  duty  by 
sending  him  an  extract  of  the  discourses  that  Peter  had  already  sent 
to  James.  The  work  pretends  therefore  to  have  been  sent  to  James 
under  the  title  of  « Clement's  Epitome  of  the  Sermons  made  by  Peter 
during  his  journeys»  (K^/JLSVTOQ  rcov  Ilirpoo  iittdrjfiiwv  xrjpi>YfJ.drwv 
entropy,  c.  20),  a  title  that  recalls  at  once  the  pretended  «Journeys 
of  Peter  written  by  Clement »  (rale,  neptodotg  xaXoufiivatg  IHrpoi>  rale, 
dta  KATJ/JLSVTOG  rpavsicraicj,  which  Epiphanius  (Haer.  30,  15)  tells  us 
was  an  Ebionite  work.  The  story  of  Clement,  as  told  in  the  Ho 
milies,  is  again  a  cover  for  the  doctrinal  teaching  of  Peter.  With 
the  exception  of  a  few  insignificant  details  (Horn.  xii.  8)  the  story 
tallies  in  all  essentials  with  that  related  in  the  Recognitions.  The 
doctrinal  ideas  exhibit  close  conformity  with  those  of  the  Elkesaites. 
The  heathen  elements  of  the  Elkesaite  teaching  are  no  longer  ap 
parent,  but  the  essential  identity  of  Christianity  and  Judaism  is  very 
energetically  maintained.  It  is  the  same  prophet  who  revealed  himself 
in  Adam,,  Moses  and  Jesus.  As  it  fell  to  Moses  to  restore  the  primitive 
religion  when  obscured  and  disfigured  by  sin,  so  the  new  revelation 
in  Jesus  had  become  necessary  by  reason  of  the  gradual  darkening 
and  alteration  of  the  original  Mosaic  revelation  (Horn.  ii.  38  ff.). 
Finally,  the  two  Epitomes  or  Compendia  omit  the  theological  dis 
cussions,  recapitulate  the  narrative  of  the  Homilies,  and  relate  the 
doings  of  St.  Clement  at  Rome,  together  with  his  martyrdom.  While 
both  Recognitions  and  Homilies  certainly  antedate  the  Epitomes,  the 
question  of  priority  raised  by  the  similarity  of  the  subject  matter 
of  the  Recognitions  and  the  Homilies  is  not  an  easy  one.  It  has 
been  answered  in  so  many  contradictory  ways,  that  there  is  an 
urgent  need  for  a  new  examination  of  the  problem.  Hilgenfeld 
believes  that  the  Recognitions  are  the  earlier  work,  of  which  the 
Homilies  offer  us  an  enlargement.  Uhlhorn  maintains  the  priority  of 
the  Homilies,  and  Lehmann  finds  in  the  Recognitions  two  distinct 
sections,  the  first  of  which  (Book  I — III)  is  older  than  the  Homilies, 
while  the  second  (Book  IV — X)  is  posterior  to  them.  Langen 
places  the  composition  of  the  Homilies  at  Caesarea  toward  the  end 
of  the  second  century,  that  of  the  Recognitions  at  Antioch  about 



the  beginning  of  the  third  century.  Both  works,  however,  he  declares, 
are  merely  revisions,  or  rather  polemical  refutations  of  a  still  earlier 
work,  written  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  in  135,  with  the  purpose 
of  establishing  at  Rome  the  supreme  ecclesiastical  primacy.  While  it 
is  likely  enough  that  older  writings  have  been  embodied  in  the 
Clementines,  as  we  now  read  them,  the  hypothesis  of  a  primitive 
work  of  this  character  and  tendency  is  both  arbitrary  and  untenable. 
On  the  other  hand,  it  is  probably  true  that,  in  their  traditional  shape, 
the  Clementines  exhibit  a  Judaizing  tendency,  in  so  far  as  they  desire 
to  see  the  primacy  transferred  from  Peter  (and  Clement)  to  James, 
from  Rome  to  Jerusalem  (or  Caesarea  and  Antioch). 

The  first  printed  edition  of  the  Recognitions  from  the  Latin  version  of 
Rufinus  was  published  by  J.  Faber  Stapulensis  (Lefevre  d'Estaples),  Paris,  1504. 
An  improved  text  was  published  by  Cotelerius,  Patres  aevi  apostolici,  i., 
Paris,  1672.  For  other  editions  cf.  Schoenemann ,  Bibl.  hist.-litt.  Patrum 
lat.,  i.  633  ff.  The  most  recent  is  that  of£.  G.  Gersdorf,  Leipzig,  1838  (Bibl. 
Patr.  eccles.  lat.  sel.,  i;  Migne,  PG.,  i).  dementis  Romani  Recognitiones 
syriace  P.  A.  de  Lagarde  edidit,  Leipzig  and  London,  1861. 

The  Homilies  were  first  edited  by  Cotelier  (1.  c.),  but  this  edition  did 
not  go  beyond  the  middle  of  the  nineteenth  Homily,  where  the  manuscript 
ended  from  which  the  text  was  taken.  Similarly  the  edition  of  A.  Schwegler, 
Stuttgart,  1847.  The  complete  text  is  reproduced  in  Migne  (PG.,  ii),  from 
the  edition  of  A.  R.  M.  Dressel,  dementis  Romani  quae  feruntur  homiliae 
viginti  mine  primum  integrae,  Gottingen,  1853.  P.  de  Lagarde  was  the 
first  to  publish  (the  Greek  text  without  translation)  an  edition  answering  in 
all  essentials  to  modern  requirements :  Clementina,  edited  by  P.  de  Lagarde, 
Leipzig,  1865;  the  introduction  (pp.  3 — 28)  was  reprinted  by  him  in  his 
Mitteilungen,  Gottingen,  1884,  pp.  26 — 54.  A  remark  of  Lagarde's  is  worth 
quoting:  «I  think  we  shall  not  make  any  substantial  progress  without  a 
proper  and  continuous  commentary  on  the  Clementine  Recognitions  and 
Homilies»  (Clementina,  p.  n).  Rufinus'  version  of  the  Letter  of  Clement  to 
James,  which  even  in  the  time  of  Rufinus  was  prefixed  to  the  Recognitions, 
was  edited  anew  by  0.  F.  Fritzsche,  Epistola  dementis  ad  Jacobum  (progr.), 
Zurich,  1873.  Dressel  published  both  Epitomes:  Clementinorum  Epitome 
duae,  Leipzig,  1859.  A.  Hilgenfeld,  Die  clementinischen  Rekognitionen  und 
Homilien,  Jena,  1848.  G.  Uhlhorn,  Die  Homilien  und  Rekognitionen  des 
Clemens  Romanus,  Gottingen,  1854.  J.  Lehmann,  Die  clementinischen 
Schriften,  Gotha,  1869.  G.  Frommberger,  De  Simone  Mago.  Pars  prima: 
De  origine  Pseudo-Clementinoruni  (Dissert,  inaug.),  Breslau,  1886.  H.  M. 
Tan  Nes,  Het  Nieuxve  Testament  in  de  Clementinen  (Dissert,  inaug.),  Amster 
dam,  1887.  y.  Langen,  Die  Clemensromane,  Gotha,  1890.  Cf.  A.  Brilll 
in  Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1891),  Ixxiii.  577 — 601 ;  C.  Bigg,  The  Clementine 
Homilies,  in  Studia  biblica  et  ecclesiastica,  Oxford,  1890,  ii.  157 — 193; 
F.  Hort,  Notes  introductory  to  the  study  of  the  Clementine  Recognitions, 
London,  1901 ;  J.  Chapman,  Origen  and  the  Date  of  Pseudo-Clemens,  in 
Journal  of  Theol.  Studies  (1902),  iii.  436—441 ;  J.  Franko,  Beitrage  aus 
dem  Kirchenslavischen  zu  den  Apokryphen  des  Neuen  Testaments.  I:  Zu 
den  Pseudo-Clementinen ,  in  Zeitschr.  fur  die  neutestamentl.  Wissensch. 
(1902),  iii.  146—155.  For  another  and  a  later  Clementine  apocryphal 
writing  cf.  G.  Mercati,  Note  di  letteratura  biblica  e  cristiana  antica  (Studi 
e  Testi,  v),  Rome,  1901,  80 — 81,  238 — 241.  J.  Bergmann,  Les  elements  juifs 
dans  les  pseudo-Clementines,  in  Revue  des  etudes  juives,  1903,  pp.  59 — 98. 


H.  U.  Meyboom ,  De  Clemens-Roman.  Part  I:  Synoptische  Vertaling  van 
den  Tekst,  Groningen,  1902.  Part  II,  Groningen,  1904.  A.  Hilgenfeld,  Ori- 
genes  und  Pseudo-Clemens,  in  Zeitschr.  fiir  wissenschaftl.  Theol.  (1903),  xlvi. 
342 — 351.  Chapman  (1.  c.,  p.  441)  places  the  Clementines  in  early  part  of  the 
fourth  century;  cf.  Kellner,  in  Theol.  Revue  (1903),  ii.  421— 422.  H,  Waitz, 
Die  Pseudo-Clementinen,  Homilien  und  Rekognitionen.  Eine  quellenkritische 
Untersuchung  (Texte  und  Untersuchungen  [Leipzig  1904],  x.  4).  A.  Hilgen- 
feld,  Pseudo- Clemens  in  moderner  Fac,on,  in  Zeitschr.  fiir  wissenschaftl. 
Theol.,  1904,  pp.  545  —  567.  A.  C.  Headlam,  The  Clementine  Literature,  in 
Journal  of  Theol.  Studies  (1901),  iii.  41 — 58.  F.  H.  Chase,  The  Clementine 
Literature,  in  Hastings'  Diet,  of  the  Bible  (1900),  art.  «Peter»,  p.  775. 

§  27.     The  Montanist  Literature. 

Montanism  arose  in  Phrygia  and  called  itself  « the  new  prophecy », 
the  completion  of  the  revelation  made  by  God  to  man.  In  their 
ecstatic  exaltation  or  delirium  Montanus  and  his  female  companions, 
Priscilla  (Prisca)  and  Maximilla,  pretended  to  be  the  organs  of  the 
Paraclete ;  they  were  to  be  its  voice,  not  so  much  for  the  communi 
cation  of  new  truths  of  faith  as  for  new  and  higher  demands  upon 
Christian  life.  Certain  collections  of  oracles  of  the  prophetic  tri- 
folium  --  « countless  books »,  says  Hippolytus  1  -  -  were  held  by  the 
Montanists  as  equal  in  authority  to  the  books  of  biblical  revelation. 
They  were  held  to  be  «new  Scriptures »,  says  the  Roman  priest 
Gains 2.  They  had  also  for  use  in  their  meetings  new  spiritual 
chants  or  Psalms  3.  The  work  of  the  Montanist  writer  Asterius  Ur- 
banus,  cited4  by  an  anonymous  Antimontanist  in  192 — 193,  was 
probably  a  collection  of  oracular  replies.  The  Antimontanist  work 
of  the  apologist  Miltiades  (§  19,  i)  gave  his  opponents  an  occasion 
to  reply5.  Themison,  prominent  among  the  Montanists  of  Phrygia, 
«imitated  the  Apostle  and  wrote  a  Catholic  Letter,  i.  e.  addressed  to 
all  Christians »  6.  Early  in  the  third  century  a  certain  Proclus  wrote  in 
defence  of  Montanism  at  Rome 7.  The  most  brilliant  convert  to  the 
«new  prophecy »  was  Tertullian  of  Carthage  (§  50). 

G.  N.  Bonwetsch,  Die  Geschichte  des  Montanismus,  Erlangen,  1881. 
A.  Hilgenfeld,  Die  Ketzergeschichte  des  Urchristentums ,  Leipzig,  1884, 
pp.  560—601 :  «Die  Kataphryger».  Th.  Zahn,  Forschungen  zur  Gesch. 
des  neutestamentl.  Kanons  und  der  altkirchl.  Literatur,  Erlangen  and  Leipzig, 
l893;  v-  3 — 57  :  «Die  Chronologic  des  Montanismus*. 

§  28.     The  New  Testament  Apocrypha. 

I.  GENERAL  NOTIONS.  The  term,  New  Testament  Apocrypha, 
is  given  to  a  widely  ramified  class  of  writings  that  imitate  those 

1  Philos.,  viii.    19.  2  Apud  Ens.,  Hist,  eccl.,   vi.   20,   3. 

3  Tert.,  Adv.   Marc.,  v.   8;   De  anima,   c.   9. 

4  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,   v.    16,    17.  5  Ih.,   v.    17,    i. 

6  Apollonius  apud  Eus.,  \.   c.,   v.   18,    5. 

7  Gaius  apud  Eus.,  \.   c.,   iii.   31,   4. 


of  the  New  Testament.  The  subject-matter  is  the  same,  and  usually 
these  works  are  attributed  to  the  authors  of  the  New  Testament. 
In  view  of  their  form  and  plan  they  may  be  divided  like  the  canon 
ical  Scriptures  into  Gospels,  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  Letters  of  the 
Apostles,  and  Apocalypses.  In  origin  and  tendency  they  are  partly 
works  of  heretical  and  partisan  authors,  and  partly  works  of  edi 
fication  written  with  good  intentions.  Indeed,  the  silence  of  the  New 
Testament  concerning  the  youth  of  our  Lord,  the  life  of  His  Mother, 
and  the  later  history  of  the  Apostles,  seemed  especially  destined  to 
excite  pious  imaginations ;  in  this  way  sprang  up  about  the  trunk  of 
the  historico-canonical  Scriptures  a  wild  and  luxurious  vegetation  of 
legends.  But  the  majority  of  the  Apocrypha,  especially  the  Gospels 
and  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  were  written  for  the  purpose  of  propagating 
the  doctrines  of  some  particular  heresy.  Among  the  Gnostics  especially 
this  kind  of  literature  spread  with  almost  unearthly  rapidity.  All 
those  Apocrypha  that  affect  more  or  less  an  historical  form  are 
characterized  especially,  from  a  literary  point  of  view,  by  a  certain 
weirdness,  extravagance  and  absurdity.  It  has  been  often  and  rightly 
remarked  that  the  relations  of  the  apocryphal  historiography  to 
the  historical  books  of  the  New  Testament  are  such  as  to  bring 
out  very  clearly  the  purity  and  truth  of  the  canonical  narratives. 
Withal,  the  apocryphal  legends  and  romances  have  played  a  pro 
minent  role  in  history.  Their  subject-matter  was  very  attractive; 
hence  in  many  lands  they  furnished  the  material  for  pious  reading 
or  conversation,  and  were  in  a  way  the  spiritual  nourishment  of  the 
people.  Not  only  did  harmless  legends  meet  with  acceptance  and 
approval,  but  several  distinctly  heretical  works,  revised  and  stripped 
of  their  errors,  continued  to  affect  Christian  thought  long  after  the 
disappearance  of  their  original  circle  of  readers. 

The  most  important  of  the  older  collections  of  New  Testament  Apo 
crypha  is  that  of  the  well-known  literary  historian  y.  A.  Fabridus ,  Codex 
apocryphus  Novi  Testament!,  2  voll.,  Hamburg,  1703—1719.  The  first 
volume  was  reprinted  in  1719,  the  second  in  1743.  J.  C.  Thilo  planned 
as  his  life-work  a  complete  critical  collection ;  apart  from  separate  editions 
of  several  apocryphal  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  he  prepared  only  the  first 
volume  of  his  projected  work ;  it  offers  an  entirely  new,  and  in  every  way 
admirable,  recension  of  many  apocryphal  Gospels :  Codex  apocryphus  Novi 
Testament!,  Leipzig,  1832,  i.  A  work  of  much  less  value  is  the  edition 
brought  out  by  W.  Giles ,  containing  chiefly  apocryphal  Gospels :  Codex 
apocryphus  Novi  Testament!,  2  voll.,  London,  1853.  Since  then  there 
have  appeared  only  collective  editions  of  specific  groups  of  New  Testament 
Apocrypha,  Gospels,  Acts,  etc.  (cf.  pp.  87  ff.).  H.  Hilgenfeld ,  Novum 
Testamentum  extra  canonem  receptum,  fasc.  iv,  Leipzig,  1866,  2.  ed.,  1884. 
M.  Rh.  James,  Apocrypha  anecdota,  Cambridge,  1893  (Texts  and  Studies, 
ii.  3).  Id.,  Apocrypha  anecdota,  2.  series,  Cambridge,  1897  (Texts  and 
Studies,  v.  i).  P.  Lacan ,  Fragments  d'Apocryphes  coptes  de  la  Biblio- 
theque  Nationale,  publics  dans  les  Memoires  de  la  Mission  franchise 
d'archeologie  orientale,  Le  Caire,  1904. 

§    28.       THE    NEW   TESTAMENT    APOCRYPHA.  8 7 

The  editions  of  the  Syriac  Apocrypha  of  the  New  Testament  are  in 
dicated  by  E.  Nestle,  in  his  Syrische  Grammatik ,  2.  ed.,  Berlin,  1888, 
Litteratura,  27  ff  . ;  cf.  Nestle,  in  Realencykl.  fiir  prot.  Theol.  und  Kirche, 
Leipzig,  3.  ed.,  1897,  iii.  168.  R.  Duval,  La  litterature  syriaque,  Paris,  1899 
(Biblioth.  de  1'enseignement  de  1'histoire  ecclesiastique.  Anciennes  littera- 
tures  chretiennes,  ii.),  pp.  95 — 120,  with  corrections  and  additions,  Paris, 
1900,  pp.  20 — 21.  For  the  Apocrypha  in  Old-Slavonic  cf.  N.  Bonwetsch 
apud  Harnack,  Gesch.  der  altchristl.  Literatur,  i.  902 — 917.  For  the  Coptic 
Apocrypha  cf.  C.  Schmidt  apud  Harnack  1.  c.,  i.  919 — 924.  R.  Basset,  Les 
Apocryphes  ethiopiens  traduits  en  franc,  ais,  Paris,  1893  ff.  Cf.  James,  Apo 
crypha  anecd.,  2.  series,  pp.  166  ff.  Recent  collections  of  versions:  K.  Fr. 
Borberg,  Bibliothek  der  neutestamentl.  Apokryphen,  Stuttgart,  1841,  vol.  i. 
(the  only  volume  printed).  Migne,  Dicdonnaire  des  Apocryphes,  2  voll.,  Paris, 
1856—1858.  --  Movers  (Kaulen) ,  Apokryphen  und  Apokryphenliteratur, 
in  Kirchenlexikon  of  Wetzer  and  Welte,  2.  ed.,  Freiburg,  1882,  i.  1036  to 
1084,  a  profoundly  erudite  study.  R.  Hofmann,  Apokryphen  des  Neuen 
Testamentes,  in  Realencykl.  fur  prot.  Theol.  und  Kirche,  Leipzig,  3.  ed.,  1896, 
i.  653 — 670.  H.  J.  Holtzmann,  Lehrbuch  der  hist.-krit.  Einleitung  in  das 
Neue  Testament,  2.  ed.,  Freiburg,  1886,  pp.  534 — 554:  «Die  neutestament- 
lichen  Apokryphen ».  E.  Preuschen,  Die  Reste  der  aufterkanonischen  Evan- 
gelien  und  urchristlichen  Uberlieferungen,  Gieften,  1901.  B.  Pick,  The 
Extra-Canonical  Life  of  Christ,  New  York,  1903.  James  de  Quincy  Donehoo, 
The  Apocryphal  and  Legendary  Life  of  Christ,  New  York,  1903.  E.  H. 
Chase,  Encyclopedia  Biblica. 

2.  APOCRYPHAL  GOSPELS.  By  far  the  greater  part  of  the  Apo 
cryphal  Gospels  that  have  been  preserved,  or  are  in  any  way  known 
to  us,  were  written  in  the  first  three  centuries  by  Gnostics,  with  the 
purpose  of  lending  an  apostolic  sanction  to  their  doctrines.  Not  a 
few  of  these  works  enjoyed  in  particular  Gnostic  sects  or  group  of 
sects  an  authority  identical  with  or  similar  to  that  of  the  canonical 
Gospels  in  the  Catholic  Church.  We  have  mentioned  the  Diatessaron 
ofTatian  (§  18,  3),  the  Gospel  of  Basilides  (§  25,  2),  the  Valentinian 
Gospel  of  the  Truth  (§  25,  5),  the  Gospel  of  Marcion  and  Apelles 
(§  25,  7)  etc.,  and  shall  have  occasion  to  mention  others.  If  we 
look  at  the  structure  and  content  of  the  apocryphal  gospels  we  see 
that  some  are  based  on  the  canonical  books  whose  material  they 
develop  under  the  influence  of  their  own  doctrines;  others  invent  their 
stories  quite  freely.  The  latter  treat  of  the  youth  of  our  Lord  or  of 
His  actions  after  the  Resurrection.  As  early  as  the  time  of  St.  Irenaeus, 
the  Gnostics  were  wont  to  lament  the  silence  of  the  Gospels  about 
the  life  of  Jesus  Christ  before  His  Baptism  and  after  His  Resurrection ; 
they  also  relate  that,  after  the  latter,  He  spent  eighteen  months  on 
earth  in  order  to  initiate  more  profoundly  some  privileged  disciples 
in  the  mysteries  of  His  teaching  *.  The  Gospel  according  to  the 
Hebrews,  and  the  Ebionite  Gospel,  belong  to  other  heretical  or 
sectarian  communities;  the  Protevangelium  Jacobi  is  the  product  of 
ecclesiastical  circles. 

1  Adv.  haer.,   i.   30,    14;   cf.   i.   3,   2. 


Evangelia  apocrypha,  edidit  C.  Tischendorf,  Leipzig,  1853,  2.  ed., 
1876.  F.  Robinson,  Coptic  Apocryphal  Gospels,  Cambridge,  1896  (Texts 
and  Studies,  iv.  2).  M.  N.  Speranskij ,  The  Slavonic  Apocryphal  Gos 
pels  (Russian),  Moscow,  1895.  E.  Preuschen ,  Antilegomena.  Die  Reste 
der  aufterkanonischen  Evangelien  und  urchristlichen  Uberlieferungen, 
Gieften,  1901. 

R.  Clemens,  Die  geheim  gehaltenen  oder  sog.  apokryphischen  Evange 
lien,  ins  Deutsche  iibertragen,  Stuttgart,  1852.  B.  H.  Cowper,  The  Apo 
cryphal  Gospels  and  other  Documents  relating  to  the  history  of  Christ, 
translated  from  the  originals,  6.  ed.,  London,  1897.  C.  Tischendorf,  De 
evangeliorum  apocryphorum  origine  et  usu,  The  Hague,  1891.  R.  A.  Lipsius, 
Apocryphal  Gospels,  in  Diet,  of  Christ.  Biogr.  (London,  1880),  ii.  700 — 717. 
A.  Tappchorn,  Aufierbiblische  Nachrichten  oder  die  Apokryphen  liber  die 
Geburt,  Kindheit  und  das  Lebensende  Jesu  und  Maria,  Paderborn,  1885. 
Th.  Zahn,  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons,  Erlangen  and  Leipzig,  1892, 
ii.  621 — 797:  «Uber  apokryphe  Evangelien».  J.  G.  Tasker,  (art.)  «Apo- 
cryphal  Gospels»  in  Hastings'  Diet,  of  the  Bible  (extra  vol.),  1904,  pp.  420 
to  438.  Battifol,  (art.)  «Evangiles  Apocryphes»  in  Vigour oux,  Diet,  de  la 
Bible.  Tome  II,  col.  2114 — 2118. 

3.  APOCRYPHAL  ACTS  OF  THE  APOSTLES.  The  ancient  traditions 
concerning  the  lives  and  deaths  of  the  Apostles  were  soon  enriched, 
for  many  reasons,  with  an  abundance  of  fabulous  tales ;  according 
as  this  narrative-material  was  committed  to  writing,  there  took  place 
a  still  stronger  colouring  of  these  stories.  The  Apocryphal  Acts  of 
the  Apostles  are  in  reality  religious  romances.  Some  of  them  seek 
merely  to  satisfy  a  pious  curiosity.  Most  of  them,  however,  under 
the  cover  of  marvellous  and  pleasure-giving  tales,  tend  to  create  an 
opening  for  heretical  doctrines  that  are  artfully  insinuated  in  them. 
In  his  commentary  on  the  apocryphal  Third  Letter  to  the  Corinthians, 
Ephraem  Syrus  reproaches  the  followers  of  Bardesanes  with  having 
changed  the  missionaries  of  the  Lord  into  preachers  of  the  impiety 
of  Bardesanes.  Later,  especially  since  the  beginning  of  the  fifth 
century,  a  certain  Leucius,  or,  as  Photius  writes  it 1,  Leucius  Charinus, 
is  very  often  mentioned  as  the  writer  of  heretical  Acts  of  the  Apostles, 
especially  of  Acts  of  St.  John.  The  earliest  traces  of  this  very 
dubious  personality  are  found  in  Epiphanius 2  and  Pacianus 3.  It  is 
probable  that  in  the  introduction  to  the  Acts  of  John,  which  have 
reached  us  only  in  a  very  fragmentary  state,  the  author  made  himself 
known  as  Leucius,  a  disciple  of  the  Apostle.  Probably  the  same 
hand  wrote  the  equally  Gnostic  Acts  of  Peter  and  perhaps  the  no 
less  Gnostic  Acts  of  Andrew.  Many  Gnostic  Acts  were  « worked 
over»  at  a  later  date  by  Catholics,  in  such  a  way  as  to  retain,  with 
more  or  less  consistency,  the  tales  about  the  journeys  and  miracles 
of  the  Apostles,  while  the  heretical  discourses  and  teachings  were 
cut  out.  The  original  Gnostic  texts  have  generally  perished,  while 
the  Catholic  revisions  of  the  same  have  been  preserved,  at  least 

1  Bibl.  Cod.    114.  2  Haer.   51,   6. 

3  Ep.  i.   ad   Sympr.,   c.   2. 

§    28.       THE    NEW    TESTAMENT    APOCRYPHA.  89 

in  fragments.  Of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  written  originally  by 
Catholics  only  a  few  remnants  have  reached  our  time. 

Foremost  and  epoch-making  among  the  works  on  the  Apocryphal  Acts 
of  the  Apostles  is  that  by  R.  A.  Lipsius,  Die  apokryphen  Apostelgeschichten 
und  Apostellegenden,  2  voll.,  Braunschweig  1883 — 1890,  with  a  supplemen 
tary  fascicule.  Acta  Apostolorum  apocrypha,  edidit  C.  Tischendorf,  Leipzig, 
1851.  Cf.  Additamenta  ad  Acta  Apostolorum  apocrypha  in  Tischendorf, 
Apocalypses  apocryphae,  Leipzig,  1886,  xlvii — 1.  137 — 167.  Acta  Aposto 
lorum  apocrypha,  post  C.  Tischendorf  denuo  ediderunt  R.  A.  Lipsius  et 
M.  Bonnet.  Pars  prior,  Leipzig,  1891.  Partis  alterius  vol.  i.,  1898.  Supple- 
mentum  codicis  apocryphi  i:  Acta  Thomae.  Edidit  M.  Bonnet,  Leipzig, 
1883.  Suppl.  cod.  apocr.  ii:  Acta  Andreae.  Ed.  M.  Bonnet,  Paris,  1895. 

For  similar  apocryphal  material  in  Syriac,  cf.  W.  Wright,  Apocryphal 
Acts  of  the  Apostles,  2  voll.,  London,  1871.  /.  Guidi  has  edited  (Rendi- 
conti  della  Regia  Accademia  dei  Lincei,  1887 — 1888)  and  translated  into 
Italian  (Giornale  della  Societa  Asiatica  Italiana  [1888],  ii.  r — 66)  some 
Coptic  fragments  of  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  Other  fragments  were  published 
in  1890  by  O.  von  Lemm.  For  further  detail  cf.  Lipsius,  Die  apokryphen 
Apostelgeschichten  und  Apostellegenden,  Supplement,  pp.  98  ff.,  259  if. 
Id.,  Apocryphal  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  in  Diet,  of  Christ.  Biogr.,  London, 
1880,  i.  17 — 32.  S.  C.  Malan  translated  into  English  (1871)  an  Ethiopic 
collection  (from  the  Coptic  through  the  Arabic)  of  Acts  of  the  Apostles, 
under  the  title  « Conflicts  of  the  Apostles».  E.  A.  W.  Budge  began  the 
publication  of  the  Ethiopic  text  with  an  English  translation,  vol.  i,  London, 
1899,  vol.  ii  (the  last),  1901.  A.  v.  Gutschmid ,  Die  Konigsnamen  in  den 
apokryphen  Apostelgeschichten  (Rhein.  Museum  fur  Philol. ,  new  series 
[1864],  xix.  161 — 183,  380 — 401,  reprinted  inKleine  Schriften  vonA.  v.  Gut 
schmid,  herausgeg.  von  Fr.  Riihl,  Leipzig,  1890,  ii.  332 — 394.  Zahn,  Gesch. 
des  neutestamentl.  Kanons  (1892),  ii.  2,  797 — 910:  «Uber  apokryphe  Apo- 
kalypsen  und  Apostelgeschichten ».  Duchesne ,  Les  anciens  recueils  des 
legendes  apostoliques  (Compte  rendu  du  III.  Congres  scientifique  internat. 
des  Catholiques,  section  v  (Bruxelles,  1895),  pp.  67  —  79. 

4.  APOCRYPHAL   LETTERS   OF  THE  APOSTLES.     In   comparison  with 
the  long  series  of  Apocryphal  Gospels  and  Acts,  there  are  but  few 
similar  documents  in  the  shape  of  special  Letters,  unconnected  with 
larger  works.     During  the  first  three  or  four  centuries  we  come  across 
only  a  few  Letters  or  Collections  of  Letters  current  under  the  name 
of  St.  Paul.     The    apocryphal    third  Letter   to    the  Corinthians,    ori 
ginally   a    part    of  the    apocryphal  Acta    Pauli,    enjoyed    for    a    time 
canonical  authority  in  the  churches  of  Syria  and  Armenia. 

There  is  no  special  edition  of  all  the  Apocryphal  Letters  of  the  Apostles. 
Cf.  Zahn,  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons,  ii.  2,  565 — 621:  «Unechte 

5.  APOCRYPHAL  APOCALYPSES.    An  Apocalypse  of  Peter  has  reached 
us  in  fragments.     It  belongs  to  the  first  half  of  the  second  century; 
all  other  apocryphal  Apocalypses  bearing  New  Testament  names  are 
of  a  later  date. 

Apocalypses  apocryphae.  Maximam  partem  nunc  primum  edidit  C. 
Tischendorf,  Leipzig,  1866.  Zahn,  1.  c.,  ii.  2,  797 — 910:  «Uber  apokryphe 
Apokalypsen  und  Apostelgeschichten*.  R.  A.  Lipsius,  Apocryphal  Apo 
calypses,  in  Diet,  of  Christ.  Biogr.,  London,  1880,  i.  130 — 132. 

9<3  FIRST    PERIOD.       THIRD    SECTION. 

§  29.     Apocryphal   Gospels. 

1.  A  PAPYRUS-FRAGMENT.     A   small   fragment  of  a   third-century 
papyrus-codex  discovered  at  Fayum  in  Middle  Egypt  treats  of  certain 
prophecies  of  the  Lord  concerning  the  scandal    of  his  disciples  and 
the   denial    of  Peter.     It   offers   a   parallel    to  Mt.  xxvi.   30 — 34   and 
Mk.  xiv.   26 — 30.     Bickell  and  others  look  on  it  as  one  of  those  lost 
evangelical   narratives  of  which  Luke  speaks   in  the   prologue  of  his 
Gospel.     It  is  possible,  however,  that  it  is  merely  a  loose  quotation 
from  Matthew  or  Mark,    and  has  drifted  down  as  a  relic  from  some 
homily  or  other  writing. 

The  fragment  has  been  several  times  edited  and  commented  on  by 
G.  Bickell,  first  in  Zeitschr.  fur  kath.  Theol.  (1885),  ix.  498 — 504,  and  finally 
in  Mitteihmgen  aus  der  Sammlung  der  Papyrus  Erzherzog  Rainer  (1892), 
v.  78 — 82.  Cf.  Ad.  Harnack,  in  Texte  und  Untersuchungen  (1889),  v.  4, 
481 — 497.  He  thinks  it  a  Gospel-fragment.  Th.  Zahn,  Gesch.  des  neu- 
testamentl.  Kanons,  Erlangen  and  Leipzig,  1892,  ii.  2,  780 — 790:  in  his 
opinion  it  is  a  loose  quotation  from  the  Gospels.  P.  Sam,  in  Revue  Biblique 
(1892),  i.  321—344,  and  in  Litterattira  cristiana  antica,  Studi  critici  del 
P.  Paolo  Savi  barnabita,  raccolti  e  riordinati  dal  can.  Fr.  Polese ,  Siena, 
1899,  pp.  123 — 145,  thought  that  it  looked  more  like  a  fragment  of  a 
Gospel  than  a  loose  quotation  from  one. 

2.  THE    GOSPEL    ACCORDING    TO    THE    HEBREWS.       Since    Lessing 
(f    1781)    there   is   frequent    mention   in   modern    Gospel -criticism   of 
the  Gospel  according   to   the  Hebrews  (TO  #«#'  ^Eftpalooc,  edaffshov, 
Evangelium  secundum  sen  juxta  Hebraeos).     It  is  known  to  us  only 
through    stray    references    in    ancient    ecclesiastical    writers    such    as 
St.  Irenaeus,  Clement  of  Alexandria,  Origen,  Eusebius,  St.  Epiphanius, 
St.  Jerome,  and  others.   A  decisive  authority  attaches  to  the  statements 
of  St.  Jerome.     To   the  evidence  of  earlier  writers   that   the  Gospel 
according    to    the  Hebrews   had    been  written  in  Hebrew,    he  added 
the   specific   information:   «chaldaico    quidem    syroque    sermone,    sed 
hebraicis   litteris   scriptum    est»,    i.   e.    it  was    composed   in  Aramaic, 
but  transliterated  in  Hebrew  *.    About  390  Jerome  translated  it  2  from 
Aramaic    into    Greek   and   Latin;    both   versions    together   with    the 
original   have   fallen   a   prey   to    the   ravages   of  time.      Perhaps   the 
quotations  in  Clement  of  Alexandria  and  Origen  are  proof  that  long 
before  St.  Jerome  there  existed  a  Greek  version  of  this  Gospel.    As  to 
its  contents,  we  may  gather  from  St.  Jerome  and  the  other  witnesses 
that   it    was   closely   related    to    the    canonical    Gospel    of   Matthew, 
though  not  identical  with   it.     They  were  alike  in  their  general  dis 
position   and    in    many   more    or   less    characteristic    details;    the   dif 
ferences  consisted  in  numerous  minor  additions  which  in  the  Gospel 
according  to  the  Hebrews  amplified  and  completed   the  subject-matter 
of  Matthew.     Apart   from   the    original    language    of  the    former,    it 

1  Dial.   adv.  Pelag.,   iii.   2.  2  De  viris  illustr.,   c.   2. 

§    29.       APOCRYPHAL    GOSPELS.  9! 

was  the  unanimous  opinion  of  the  entire  ancient  Church  that  the 
Gospel  of  Matthew  had  been  composed  in  Aramaic.  Hence  it  is 
not  easy  to  avoid  the  hypothesis  that  the  Gospel  according  to  the 
Hebrews  was  merely  a  revision  and  enlargement  of  the  Gospel  of 
Matthew.  It  cannot  have  been  composed  later  than  about  the  middle 
of  the  second  century,  since  Hegesippus  knew  it  and  made  use  of 
it  *.  The  Aramaic-speaking  Judaeo-Christians  of  Palestine  and  Syria 
were  known  as  «Hebrews».  Jerome  always  uses  the  term  «Nazaraei» 
for  those  who  read  and  venerate  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews ; 
on  one  occasion  he  calls  them  Nazaraeans  and  Ebionites  2 ;  Epiphanius 
distinguishes 3  the  Nazaraeans ,  generally  orthodox,  from  the  clearly 
heterodox  Ebionites.  The  title  TO  xatf  lEf)paioo£  &jo.f~(ihov  was 
evidently  fashioned  after  the  formula  sdaffehov  xara  Marftatov;  it 
very  probably  meant  no  more  than  the  exclusive  use  of  that  Gospel 
in  Hebrew  circles. 

E.  B.  Nicholson,  The  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews,  London,  1879. 
Hilgenfeld ,  Nov.  Test,  extra  can.  rec.,  fasc.  iv  (2.  ed. ,  Leipzig,  1884), 
5 — 31;  cf.  Id.,  in  Zeitschr.  fiir  wissenschaftl.  Theol.  (1884),  xxvii.  188 — 194; 
(1889),  xxxii.  280 — 302.  E.  Preuschen,  Antilegomena,  Gieften,  1901,  pp.  3  —  8; 
D.  Gla,  Die  Originalsprache  des  Matthausevangeliums,  Paderborn  and  Miinster, 
1887,  pp.  101 — 121  •  R.  Handmann,  Das  Hebraerevangelium  (Texte  und 
Untersuchungen,  Leipzig,  1888,  v.  3);  Th.  Za/m,  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl. 
Kanons,  ii.  2,  642 — 723  (an  excellent  investigation);  Harnack,  Gesch.  der 
altchristl.  Literatur,  ii.  i,  631 — 651. 

EBIONITES.  Under  the  name  of  « Gospel  of  the  Twelve »  (which 
we  meet  first  in  Origen)4,  as  translated  by  St.  Jerome:  «Evangelium 
iuxta  duodecim  Apostolos»,  we  are  not  to  understand  the  Gospel 
according  to  the  Hebrews5,  but  rather  the  Gospel  of  the  Ebionites, 
i.  e.  of  those  Judaeo-Christians  who  held  Jesus  for  no  more  than  the 
son  of  Joseph.  This  Gospel  has  also  perished ;  according  to  St.  Epi 
phanius  6  it  was  a  compilation  made  for  their  purpose  from  the 
canonical  Gospels.  The  twelve  Apostles  seem  to  have  been  intro 
duced  in  the  role  of  narrators7.  It  certainly  was  written  in  Greek, 
probably  about  150 — 200. 

Hilgenfeld,  Nov.  Test,  extra  can.  rec.,  fasc.  iv,  2.  ed.,  Leipzig,  1884, 
pp.  32  —  38.  Preuschen,  Antilegomena,  pp.  9 — n.  Zahn,  Gesch.  des  neu 
testamentl.  Kanons,  ii.  2,  724 — 742.  Harnack,  Gesch.  der  altchristl.  Lite 
ratur,  ii.  i,  625 — 631.  Zahn  in  Neue  kirchliche  Zeitschr.  (1900),  xi.  361  —  370, 
believes  that  some  Coptic  fragments  edited  by  A.  Jakoby  (Ein  neues  Evan- 
geliumfragment,  Straftburg,  1900)  and  by  him  assigned  to  the  Gospel  of 
the  Egyptians  (see  below),  are  really  fragments  of  the  Gospel  of  the  Twelve. 

1  Riis.,  Hist,  eccl.,  iv.   22,   8. 

2  Comm.  in  Matth.   ad  xii.    13.  *  Haer.   29 — 30. 

4  Horn.   i.   in  Lucam :   TO  TWV  dwds~/.a 

5  Hier.,  Dial.  adv.   Pelag.,   iii.   2.  6  Haer.   30. 
1  Epiph.,  Haer.   30,    13. 


Despite  the  similarity  of  title,  the  latter  has  no  relation  with  the  text  pub 
lished  by  y.  Jtendel  Harris,  The  Gospel  of  the  Twelve  Apostles,  together 
with  the  Apocalypses  of  each  one  of  them,  edited  from  the  Syriac  ms.,  etc., 
Cambridge,  1900.  Cf.  Bessarione  VIII  (1903—1904),  vol.  v.  1421,  157  —  176, 
for  a  French  translation  by  E,  Revittout  of  some  unedited  Coptic  frag 
ments  that  he  thinks  belong  to  the  Gospel  of  the  Twelve. 

4.  THE  GOSPEL  OF  THE  EGYPTIANS.  Clement  of  Alexandria  is 
the  first  to  mention1  a  Gospel  of  the  Egyptians  (TO  XO.T  AlfUTtriotx; 
edaffshovj,  with  the  observation  that  it  contained  a  dialogue  of  the 
Lord  with  Salome,  quoted  by  the  Encratites  (Julius  Cassianus)  to 
show  that  marriage  should  be  abolished.  Hippolytus  says2  that 
the  Naassenes  made  use  of  expressions  from  the  Gospel  of  the 
Egyptians  (TO  Ixifpayopsvov  XUT  AlfonriooQ  etiaffehovj  in  defence 
of  their  theories  on  the  soul  (and  the  transmigration  of  souls?). 
Epiphanius3  says  that  the  Sabellians  established  «their  entire  error» 
and  in  particular  their  Modalistic  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  on  the 
Egyptian  Gospel  (TO  xa/M'jjLtzvov  Al-foxTtov  etjafflfaovj.  In  the  so- 
called  Second  Letter  to  the  Corinthians  (12,  2)  there  is  a  reference 
to  the  above-mentioned  dialogue  of  Salome  with  the  Lord.  It  is 
doubtful  whether  this  author  used  the  Egyptian  Gospel  and  indeed 
whether  he  drew  from  any  written  Gospel.  That  the  Gospel  was 
an  heretical  one  is  proven  by  the  circles  in  which  it  was  most  wel 
come  —  Encratites,  Naassenes,  Sabellians;  in  the  words  addressed  to 
Salome  the  Lord  is  made  to  preach  the  Pythagorean  theory  of  numbers. 
The  work  was  very  probably  composed  in  Egypt  about  150.  —  In 
the  territory  of  ancient  Oxyrhynchus,  in  Lower  Egypt,  among  the 
debris  of  a  mound  of  ruins,  there  was  recently  found  a  papyrus  folio 
containing  seven  Sayings,  or  mutilated  fragments  of  Sayings,  that 
all  begin  with  the  formula  )Afe.i  'lytrouQ.  Some  of  these  Sayings  are 
quite  similar,  in  their  entirety  or  in  part,  to  words  of  our  Lord  in 
the  canonical  Gospels ;  most  of  them  are  quite  foreign  to  the  canonical 
tradition  and  could  never  have  been  pronounced  by  our  Saviour. 
The  folio  probably  belongs  to  a  book  of  excerpts  from  some^  apo 
cryphal  Gospel.  The  most  natural  suggestion,  owing  to  the  place 
of  its  discovery  and  the  Encratite  tendency  of  some  of  the  Sayings, 
is  that  they  were  taken  from  the  Gospel  of  the  Egyptians. 

Hilgenfeld,  Nov.  Test,  extra  can.  rec.,  2.  ed.,  1884,  fasc.  iv,  pp.  42 — 48. 
Zahn,  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons,  ii.  2,  628—642.  Harnack,  Gesch. 
der  altchristl.  Literatur,  ii.  i,  612 — 622.  —  B.  P.  Gr  en  fell  and  A.  S.  Hunt, 
A«fya  'ITJSOU,  London,  1897.  They  are  also  found  in  Grenfell  and  Hunt, 
The  Oxyrhynchus  Papyri,  London,  1898,  i.  E.  Preuschen,  Antilegomena, 
pp.  43 — 44.  For  the  discussions  raised  by  the  finding  of  these  « Sayings*,  cf. 
Holtzmann  inTheol.  Jahresbericht  (1897),  xvii.  115  sq. ;  (1898),  xviii.  148  sq., 
also  Harnack,  Uber  die  jiingst  entdeckten  Spriiche  Jesu,  Freiburg,  1897. 
G.  Esser  in  the  Katholik  (1898),  i.  26—43,  137  —  151-  Ch.  Taylor,  The  Oxy- 

1  Strom.,   iii.   9,   63;    13,   93.  2  Philos.,  v.    7.  3  Haer.   62,   2. 

§    29.       APOCRYPHAL    GOSPELS.  93 

rhynchus  Logia,  Oxford,  1899.  A.  von  Schoh  in  Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1900), 
Ixxxii.  i — 22.  A.  Chiapelli  in  Nuova  Antologia,  4.  series  (1897),  Ixxi. 
524 — 534.  U.  Fracassini  in  Rivista  Bibliografica  Italiana  (1898),  iii.  513 — 518. 
G.  Semeria,  Le  Parole  di  Gesu  recentemente  scoperte  e  1'  ultima  fase  della 
critica  evangelica,  Genova,  1898.  For  an  extensive  collection  of  extra- 
canonical  «Sayings»  of  Jesus,  cf.  A.  Resch,  Agrapha,  Leipzig,  1898  (Texte 
und  Untersuchungen,  v.  4),  and  J.  H.  Ropes,  Die  Spriiche  Jesu,  die  in 
den  kanonischen  Evangelien  nicht  iiberliefert  sind,  1896  (ib.,  xiv.  2). 

C.  G.  Griffinhoofe,  The  Unwritten  Sayings  of  Christ,  Words  of  Our 
Lord  not  recorded  in  the  four  Gospels,  including  those  recently  discovered, 
Cambridge,  1903.  A  new  series  of  Logia  from  the  papyri  of  Oxyrhynchus 
is  promised. 

5.  THE  GOSPEL  OF  PETER.  Until  1892,  the  Gospel  of  Peter  was 
known  to  us  only  through  a  few  references  in  ancient  writers.  The 
most  important  of  these  was  found  in  Eusebius J,  in  a  fragment  of  a 
letter  of  Serapion,  bishop  of  Antioch  (about  200),  to  the  Christians  of 
the  neighbouring  Rhossus  or  Rhosus  on  the  coast  of  Syria.  He  forbids 
therein  the  reading  of  a  pseudo-Petrine  Gospel  (ovopart  IHrpoo  sfj- 
affihov),  which  by  certain  additions  (npoadtsffra^fJLiva)  to  the  genuine 
teaching  of  the  Saviour  was  made  to  favour  Docetism,  and  had  been  in 
use  among  Docetic-minded  Christians  of  Antioch  and  Rhossus.  It  is  very 
probable  that  to  the  same  text  belongs  a  Gospel-fragment  edited  in  1892 
by  Bouriant  from  an  eighth-century  codex,  which  contains  the  principal 
part  of  the  Lord's  Passion,  together  with  an  account  of  the  Resur 
rection,  very  diffuse  and  highly  embellished  with  quite  curious  mira 
culous  tales.  The  work  bears  internal  evidence  of  being  a  remnant 
of  a  pseudo-Petrine  writing  («But  I,  Simon  Peter »,  v.  60;  «But  I, 
with  my  companions»  v.  26).  Doceto-Gnostic  ideas  are  also  visible 
in  it  («But  he  was  silent  as  one  who  felt  no  grief  at  all»  v.  10, 
in  reference  to  the  Lord  upon  the  Cross;  cf.  v.  19).  Von  Schubert 
has  proved  that  the  author  had  before  him  the  four  Gospels,  and 
took  certain  features  of  his  story  now  from  one  and  now  from  another, 
transforming  at  the  same  time  the  canonical  narratives  in  the  interest 
of  his  own  peculiar  tendencies.  His  particular  aim  is  to  make  the 
Jews  alone  responsible  for  the  death  of  the  Lord,  and  to  present  the 
Roman  authorities  in  a  light  favourable  to  Christ  and  the  Christians. 
It  was  very  probably  composed,  about  the  middle  of  the  second 
century,  at  Antioch  in  Doceto-Gnostic  circles.  There  is  no  foundation 
for  the  attempt  to  identify  it  with  the  work  referred  to  by  St.  Justin 
Martyr  as  dxofjwyfjLOvetifJLaTa  flsTpo'j2.  The  work  referred  to  under 
that  title  in  the  Dialogue  with  Trypho  (c.  1 06),  is  the  canonical 
Gospel  of  Mark,  not  the  Gospel  of  Peter.  According  to  Eusebius3 
this  Gospel  was  used  more  or  less  exclusively  by  heretics. 

The  codex  discovered  by  U.  Bouriant  in  a  Christian  tomb  at  Akhmim, 
the  ancient  Panopolis,  in  Upper  Egypt,  contains,  besides  the  above  men- 

1   Hist,  eccl.,  vi.    12,   3-6.  z  Just.,  Dial.  c.  Tryph.,   c.    106. 

3  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  iii.   25,   6  —  7;   cf.  iii.   3,   2. 


tioned  text,  an  Apocalypse  of  Peter  (§  32,  i)  and  important  remnants  of 
the  Greek  Book  of  Enoch.  The  discoverer  was  the  first  to  publish  these 
texts  in  Memoires  publics  par  les  membres  de  la  Mission  archeologique 
franchise  au  Caire,  Paris,  1892,  ix.,  fasc.  i,  pp.  91 — 147,  with  a  facsimile 
of  the  whole  codex  and  an  introduction  by  A.  Lods,  ib.;  ix.,  fasc.  3  (Paris, 
1893).  A  facsimile  of  the  pages  containing  the  Petrine  fragments,  and  an 
accurate  recension  of  the  same/ were  soon  after  published  by  O.  von  Geb- 
hardt,  Das  Evangelium  und  die  Apokalypse  des  Petrus,  Leipzig,  1893.  The 
text  is  also  in  Preuscheu,  Antilegomena,  pp.  14—18;  cf.  pp.  13 — 14.  The 
remnants  of  the  Gospel  of  Peter,  the  Apocalypse  of  Peter,  the  Kerygma  Petri, 
were  edited  by  E.  Klostermann  and  H.  Lietzmann,  in  Kleine  Texte  fiir  theol. 
Vorlesungen  und  Ubungen,  Apocrypha  i,  Bonn,  1903.  An  English  trans 
lation  was  made  by  y.  Armitage  Robinson,  in  Ante-Nicene  Fathers  (Am. 
ed.  1885),  ix.  7 — 8.  For  the  «literary  deluge»  that  followed  the  dis 
covery  of  these  fragments  cf.  H.  Liidemann,  in  Theol.  Jahresbericht  (1892), 
xii.  171 — 173;  (1893),  xiii.  171  — 181;  (1894),  xiv.  185  ff.  It  will  be  enough 
to  indicate  the  following:  Ad.  Harnack,  Bruchstiicke  des  Evangeliums  und 
der  Apokalypse  des  Petrus  (Texte  und  Untersuchungen,  ix.  2),  Leipzig, 
1893;  2.  ed.,  ib.,  1898.  Funk,  Fragmente  des  Evangeliums  und  der  Apo 
kalypse  des  Petrus,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1893),  Ixxv.  255—288.  Th.  Zahn, 
Das  Evangelium  des  Petrus,  Erlangen  and  Leipzig,  1893.  H.  von  Schubert, 
Die  Komposition  des  pseudopetrinischen  Evangelienfragments  (with  a  syn 
optical  table),  Berlin,  1893.  D.  Volter ,  Petrusevangelium  oder  Agypter- 
evangelium?  Tubingen,  1893.  He  is  of  opinion  that  the  fragment  belongs 
to  the  Egyptian  Gospel  (see  p.  92).  E.  Piccolomini,  Sul  testo  dei  frammenti 
dell' Evangelic  e  dell' Apocalissi  del  Pseudo-Petro,  Rome,  1899.  S.  Minocchi, 
II  Nuovo  Testamento  tradotto  ed  annotato,  Roma,  1900,  pp.  385 — 391,  a 
partial  version  of  the  Gospel  of  Peter.  V.  H.  Stanton,  The  Gospel  of  Peter : 
Its  History  and  Character  considered  in  relation  to  the  history  of  the  re 
cognition  in  the  Church  of  the  canonical  Gospels,  in  Journal  of  Theo 
logical  Studies  (1900),  ii.  i — 25.  Stocks,  Zum  Petrusevangelium,  in  Neue 
kirchl.  Zeitschr.  (1902),  xiii.  276 — 314;  ib.  (1903),  pp.  515—542.  H.Usener, 
Eine  Spur  des  Petrusevangeliums  (in  the  Acts  of  St.  Pancratios  of  Taor- 
mina),  in  Zeitschr.  fiir  die  neutestamentl.  Wissensch.  (1902),  iii.  353 — 358. 
F.  H.  Chase,  (art.)  «Peter»  10.  (i)  «The  Gospel  of  Peter »,  in  Hastings 
Diet,  of  the  Bible  (1900),  vol.  Ill,  p.  776. 

of  Matthias1  seems  to  have  been  identical  with  the  « Traditions  of 
Matthias » 2  often  cited  by  Clement  of  Alexandria,  a  Gnostic  work, 
especially  favoured  by  the  Basilidians3  and  probably  used  by  Ba- 
silides  himself  and  his  son  Isidore4.  The  Gospel  of  Philip  was  also 
of  Gnostic  origin.  The  name  is  first  found  in  Epiphanius5,  and  it 
was  probably  known  to  the  Gnostic  author  of  Pistis  Sophia  6,  between 
250  and  300.  The  Gospel  of  Thomas  was  also  a  Gnostic  product.  It 
is  mentioned  by  Hippolytus 7  and  Origen  8  and  very  probably  existed 
before  the  time  of  Irenaeus9.  In  its  actual  forms,  Greek,  Latin, 
Syriac,  Slavonic,  it  is  only  an  abbreviated  and  expurgated  copy  of 

1   Orig.,  Horn.    I   in  Luc.      Ens.   1.   c  ,   iii.   25,   6—7. 

*  Clem.  Al.,  Strom.,  ii.   9,   45;   vii.    13,   82:    Ttapaduatiq  Mar&iou. 

3  Ib.,  vii.    17,    108.  4  Hippol.,  Philos.,  vii.   20. 

5  Haer.   26,    13.  6  Cf.  the  edition  of  Schwartze-Fetertnann,  pp.   69  ff. 

7  Philos.,   v.    7.  8  Hoin.    I    in  Luc.  9  Adv.   haer.,   i.   20,    i» 

§    29.       APOCRYPHAL    GOSPELS.  95 

the  original  work;  the  longer  and  perhaps  the  older  of  the  various 
recensions  bears  in  Tischendorf  the  title :  0(o/j.a  'lapayttToo  (pdoaoyoo 
faro,  dc,  ra  xaidr/M.  TOO  xopiou.  It  is  addressed  to  the  Christians 
converted  from  heathenism  (c.  i)  and  relates  a  series  of  miracles  said 
to  have  been  performed  by  Christ  from  the  fifth  to  the  twelfth  year 
of  His  youth.  The  Divine  Child  is  presented  to  us  utterly  without 
dignity,  and  is  made  to  exhibit  His  miraculous  powers  in  a  manner 
at  the  very  best  quite  puerile.  The  style  is  vulgar,  and  the  diction 
is  as  common  as  the  content  is  disgusting. 

For  the  Gospel  and  Traditions  of  Matthias  cf.  Th.  Zahn,  Gesch.  des 
neutestamentl.  Kanons,  ii.  2,  751 — 761;  Harnack,  Gesch.  der  altchristl. 
Literatur,  i.  17  f . ;  ii.  i,  595—598.  For  the  Gospel  of  Philip  cf.  Zahn,  1.  c., 
ii.  2,  761 — 768;  Harnack,  1.  c.,  i.  14  f. ;  ii.  i,  592  ff.  The  longer  of  the 
two  Greek  recensions  of  the  Gospel  of  Thomas  was  edited  by  J.  A.  Min- 
garelli,  in  Nuova  Raccolta  d' opuscoli  scientifici  e  filologici,  Venezia,  1764, 
xii.  73 — 155-,  by  y.  C.  Thilo,  Codex  apocryphus  Novi  Testamenti,  Leipzig, 
1832,  i.  275 — 315  (cf.  LXXII— xci);  by  C.  Tischendorf,  Evangelia  apo 
crypha  (2.  ed.,  Leipzig,  1876),  pp.  140  —  157  (cf.  xxxvi — XLVIII).  Tischen 
dorf^.  c.,  pp.  158 — 163)  added  a  shorter  Greek  recension  to  the  longer  one 
and  (pp.  164 — 1 80)  a  Latin  Tractatus  de  pueritia  Jcsu  secundum  Thomam. 
W.  Wright  translated  and  published  a  Syriac  version  in  Contributions  to 
the  Apocryphal  Literature  of  the  New  Testament,  London,  1865,  pp.  n — 16 
for  the  Syriac,  pp.  6 — IT  for  the  Flnglish  text.  For  the  Slavonic  recensions 
cf.  Bonwetsch,  in  Harnack,  1.  c.,  i.  910.  A  German  version  of  the  longer 
Greek  recension  in  Thilo  is  found  in  K.  Fr.  Borberg,  Bibliothek  der  neu 
testamentl.  Apokryphen,  Stuttgart,  1841,  i.  57  —  84;  L.  Conrady,  Das  Thomas- 
evangelium,  in  Theol.  Studien  und  Kritiken  (1903),  Ixxvi.  378 — 459.  For 
the  Gospel  of  Thomas  cf.  Zahn,  1.  c.,  ii.  2,  768 — 773;  Harnack,  1.  c.,  i 
15 — 17;  ii.  i,  593  —  595.  E.  Kuhn  attempted,  unsuccessfully,  to  prove  the 
Buddhistic  origin  of  the  stories  in  the  Gospel  of  St.  Thomas  concerning 
the  marvellous  knowledge  shown  in  the  village  school  by  the  Divine  Child  a. 
Festgabe  zum  fiinfzigjahrigen  Doktorjubilaum  of  A.  Weber,  Leipzig,  1896, 
pp.  116 — 119. 

7.  THE  PROTEVANGELIUM  JACOBI.  A  much  better  impression  is 
created  by  the  so-called  Protevangelium  Jacobi,  which  gives  an 
account  of  the  life  of  the  Blessed  Virgin  until  the  Slaughter  of  the 
Innocents  at  Bethlehem.  The  names  of  her  parents  are  here  given 
for  the  first  time  as  Joachim  and  Anna.  The  diction  is  chaster,  the 
whole  tone  of  the  narrative  more  noble,  and  the  contents  more  inter 
esting  and  important  than  in  most  other  apocrypha.  The  author  calls 
himself  «Jacobus»,  and  his  book  a  «History»  (jLOTopia,  c.  25,1).  The 
title  of  Protevangelium  (TCptoTSuaffiXiov))  i.  e.  primum  evangelium, 
was  given  the  work  by  G.  Postel  (f  1581).  There  are  difficulties  in 
the  way  of  admitting  a  single  authorship  for  the  text  as  found  in 
the  manuscripts.  In  the  narrative  of  the  birth  of  the  Lord  (cc.  1 8,  2; 
19,  i  2)  there  is  no  introduction,  and  Joseph  appears  suddenly  on 
the  scene  speaking  in  the  first  person.  The  closing  chapters  (22 — 24), 

1   Cf.   cc.  6  and  14  of  the  longer  Greek  recension,  and  Iren.,  Adv.  haer.,   i.   20,  I. 


in  which  are  related  the  persecution  of  John  the  Baptist  on  the 
occasion  of  the  Slaughter  of  the  Innocents,  and  the  execution  of 
his  father  Zacharias  by  order  of  Herod,  seem  to  be  later  ad 
ditions.  The  first  express  mention  of  the  work  (at  least  of  its  original 
nucleus)  is  by  Origen  1,  but  traces  of  it  are  found  with  sufficient  cer 
tainty  in  the  writings  of  Justin2.  Its  composition  is,  therefore, 
generally  referred  to  the  first  decades  of  the  second  century.  The 
author  was  certainly  a  Judseo-Christian,  not  from  Palestine,  perhaps, 
but  from  Egypt  or  Asia  Minor.  There  is  no  sufficient  foundation 
for  the  hypothesis  of  Conrady  that  the  Greek  text  is  a  translation 
of  a  Hebrew  original.  In  so  far  as  it  deals  with  biblical  material, 
the  Gospel  is  based  on  the  narratives  of  Matthew  and  Luke;  the 
features  relative  to  the  time  before  the  espousals  of  Joseph  and 
Mary  tend  to  glorify  the  Mother  of  God,  but  have  no  historical  value. 
The  edifying  tendency  of  the  book  is  responsible  for  its  wide  diffusion 
and  the  great  influence  it  has  exercised. 

The  editio  princeps  of  the  Greek  text  is  that  of  M.  Neander ,  Basle, 
1564.  The  best  editions  are  those  of  Thilo,  Codex  apocr.  Novi  Test., 
Leipzig,  1832,  i.  159 — 273  (cf.  XLV — LXXII),  and  Tischendorf,  Evang.  apocr. 
(2.  ed.,  Leipzig,  1876),  pp.  i — 50  (cf.  xn — xxn).  In  a  work  entitled  An 
Alexandrian  Erotic  Fragment  and  other  Greek  Papyri,  chiefly  Ptolemaic, 
Oxford,  1896,  pp.  13 — 19,  B.  P.  Grenfell  published  a  fifth-  or  sixth-century 
papyrus  fragment  (cc.  7,  2 — 10,  i),  of  the  Protevangelium.  A  fragment 
of  a  Syriac  version  (cc.  17 — 25),  with  an  English  translation,  is  found  in 
Wright,  Contributions  to  the  Apocryphal  Literature  of  the  New  Testament, 
London,  1865.  -  -  The  Protevangelium  Jacobi  and  Transitus  Mariae,  with 
texts  from  the  Septuagint,  the  Coran,  the  Peschitto  and  from  a  Syriac 
hymn  in  a  Syro-Arabic  palimpsest  of  the  fifth  and  other  centuries,  edited 
and  translated  by  A.  Smith  Lewis,  Cambridge,  1902  (Studia  Sinaitica,  n.  XI). 
E.  Nestle,  Ein  syrisches  Bruchstiick  aus  dem  Protoevangelium  Jacobi,  in 
Zeitschr.  fur  die  neutestamentl.  Wissensch.  (1902),  iii.  86  —  87.  In  the  Ame 
rican  Journal  of  Theology  (1897),  i.  424 — 442,  F.  C.  Conybeare  made  known 
an  Armenian  version,  and  translated  it  into  English.  For  the  Slavonic 
versions  cf.  N.  Bonwetsch,  in  Harnack,  Gesch.  der  altchristl.  Literatur,  i. 
909  ff. ;  for  Coptic  and  Arabic  versions  Thilo,  1.  c.,  Proleg.  pp.  LXVII  ff. 
There  are  German  versions  by  Borberg  (after  Thilo),  Bibliothek  der  neu 
testamentl.  Apokryphen  (Stuttgart,  1841),  i.  9 — 56,  and  by  F.  A.  v.  Lehner 
(after  Tischendorf} ,  Die  Marienverehrung  in  den  ersten  Jahrhunderten 
(2.  ed.,  Stuttgart,  1886),  pp.  223 — 236.  L.  Conrady ,  Das  Protevangelium 
Jacobi  in  neuer  Beleucntung,  in  Theol.  Studien  und  Kritiken  (1889),  Ixii. 
728—784.  Zahn,  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons,  ii.  2,  774 — 780.  Id., 
Retractiones,  iv,  in  Neue  kirchl.  Zeitschr.  (1902),  xiii.  19 — 22.  Harnack, 
1.  c.,  ii.  i,  598—603. 

In  the  so-called  Decretal  of  Gelasius,  De  recipiendis  et  non  re- 
cipiendis  libris,  we  meet  with  the  titles  of  Apocryphal  Gospels :  nomine 
Andreae,  nomine  Barnabae,  nomine  Bartholomaei.  Probably  under  the 

1  Comm.  in  Matth.,  x.    17:  ^  pit3koq  'laxatfioo. 

2  Dial.   c.   Tryph.,   cc.   78,    100;  Apol.,   i.   33. 

§    30-       APOCRYPHAL    ACTS    OF   THE    APOSTLES.  97 

name  of  Gospel  of  Andrew  are  meant  the  Acts  of  St.  Andrew  (§  30,  6) 
mentioned  by  Pope  Innocent  I.  *  and  by  St.  Augustine  2.  No  Gospel 
of  Barnabas  is  mentioned  in  ancient  ecclesiastical  literature ;  at  a  later 
period  we  meet  with  but  one  mention  of  it  in  the  (Greek)  Catalogue 
of  the  Sixty  Canonical  Books.  A  Gospel  of  Bartholomew  is  spoken 
of  by  St.  Jerome  3,  but  no  more  precise  knowledge  of  it  has  reached  us. 

The  Catalogue  of  the  Sixty  Canonical  Books  has  been  lately  edited 
anew  by  Zahn,  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons,  ii.  i,  289 — 293.  A  frag 
ment  of  the  Gospel  of  Bartholomew  is  said  to  exist  in  a  codex  of  the 
Vatican  Library:  A.  Mai,  Nova  Patr.  Bibl.,  Rome,  1854,  vii.  3,  117. 
W.  E.  A.  Axon,  On  the  Mahommedan  Gospel  of  Barnabas,  in  Journal  of 
Theol.  Studies  (1902),  iii.  441 — 453. 

9.  ORIGINS  OF  THE  PILATE-LITERATURE.  Apropos  of  the  mi 
racles  of  the  Lord  and  His  crucifixion,  Justin  Martyr  refers  the 
Roman  Emperors  to  the  Acts  of  the  trial  under  Pilate  (TO.  ITT} 
Uovrwu  nddroo  ys.vbfi.zva  axra)*.  It  is  probable  that  he  had  not  in 
mind  any  published  document  current  under  that  title,  but  took  it 
for  granted  that  the  acts  of  the  trial  of  Jesus  wrere  to  be  found  in 
the  imperial  archives  at  Rome.  The  extant  Acta  or  Gesta  Pilati, 
or  Evangelium  Nicodemi,  relate  the  interrogatory  before  Pilate,  the 
condemnation,  crucifixion,  and  resurrection  of  Jesus.  They  are  of 
Christian  origin,  and  are  not  older  than  the  fourth  century.  Ter- 
tullian  mentions5  a  report  of  Pilate  to  Tiberius  on  the  death  and 
resurrection  of  our  Lord.  The  Letter  of  Pilate  to  Emperor  Claudius, 
in  the  Acts  of  Peter  and  Paul  (§  30,  4),  might  be  a  revision  of 
of  this  report;  it  is,  in  any  case,  of  Christian  origin. 

R.  A.  Lipsius ,  Die  Pilatusakten  kritisch  untersucht,  Kiel,  1871. 
If.  v.  Schubert ,  Die  Komposition  des  pseudo-petrinischen  Evangelienfrag- 
ments,  Berlin.  1893,  pp.  175  ff.  Harnack,  Gesch.  der  altchristl.  Literatur, 
ii.  i,  603  ff.  The  Anaphora  Pilati  etc.,  in  Syriac  and  Arabic,  Studia 
Sinaitica  (1890),  v.  15 — 66,  with  English  translation,  i  — 14.  E.  v.  Dobschiitz, 
Der  Prozeft  Jesu  nach  den  Acta  Pilati,  in  Zeitschr.  fur  die  neutestamentl. 
Wissensch.  (1902),  iii.  89  114.  G.  F.  Abbott,  The  Report  and  Death  of 
Pilate,  in  Journal  of  Theol.  Studies  (1902),  iv.  83 — 88.  T/i.  Mommsen, 
Die  Pilatusakten,  in  Zeitschr.  f.  neutest.  Wissenschaft  (1902),  iii.  198 — 205. 
T.  H.  Bindley,  Pontius  Pilate  in  the  Creed,  in  Journal  of  Theol.  Studies 
(1904),  vi.  112—113. 

§  30.    Apocryphal  Acts  of  the  Apostles. 

Clement  of  Alexandria  cites  frequently6  a  « Preaching  of  Peter»  (IHrpou 
x-qp'j-flULa),  and  treats  it  as  a  trustworthy  source  of  teaching  of  the 
prince  of  the  Apostles.  Similarly  we  learn  from  Origen 7  that  the 

1  Ep.  6  ad  Exsup.,   c.    7.  2  Contra  adv.  leg.  et  proph.,   i.   20,  39. 

3  Comm.   in  Matth.,  prol.  4  Apol.,   i.   35,   48  ;   cf.  c.  38. 

5  Apol.,  c.   21  ;  cf.  c.   5.  °  Strom.,  i.   29,    182;   ii.    15,   68,  etc. 

7  Comm.  in  Joan.,  xiii.    17. 


Gnostic  Heracleon  (ca.  160 — 170)  invoked  the  authority  of  this 
work.  Origen  himself  doubts  (1.  c.)  its  authenticity,  and  Eusebius 
rejects  it  quite  decidedly  as  an  apocryphal  writing 1.  Nevertheless, 
it  found  acceptance  as  late  as  the  time  of  John  of  Damascus;  for 
the  « Teaching  of  Peter »  (IliTpov  didaaxati.a)  that  is  quoted  by  him2, 
is  very  probably  the  same  as  the  « Preaching  of  Peter »  3.  The  lost 
original  probably  contained  no  continuous  didactic  exposition  but  a 
series  of  discourses  pretending  to  be  the  work  of  Peter;  both  xypo-ftjia 
and  dtdaaxaXia  usually  indicate  teaching  of  a  collective  character. 
The  meagre  fragments  that  have  reached  us  treat  of  the  mission 
of  the  twelve  Apostles  by  the  Lord,  of  the  true,  i.  e.  the  Christian 
adoration  of  God,  and  show  no  traces  of  heretical  teaching.  It  was 
probably  composed  between  100  and  125  (cf.  §  15),  perhaps  by 
reason  of  a  misunderstanding  of  II  Pet.  i.  15.  -  -  The  only  mention 
of  a  « Preaching  of  Paul »  (Pauli  praedicatio)  is  in  the  pseudo-Cyprianic 
writing  De  rebaptismate  (c.  17);  very  probably,  however,  it  is  the 
«Acts  ofPaul»  that  are  quoted  (seep.  100).  There  seems  to  be  no 
sufficient  reason  for  the  hypothesis  of  Hilgenfeld,  according  to  which 
the  Preaching  of  Peter  and  the  Preaching  of  Paul  were  originally 
one  work  under  the'  title  IHrpo'j  xal  IIai>Aoi>  xypuffia. 

Extant  fragments  of  these  works  are  collected  and  put  in  order  by 
A.  Hilgenfeld,  in  his  Nov.  Test,  extra  can.  rec.  (2.  ed.,  Leipzig,  1884), 
iv.  51 — 65;  for  the  fragment  of  the  x^ou-f^a  IHrpoo  cf.  also  Preuschen, 
Antilegomena,  Gieften,  1901,  pp.  52 — 54.  The  single  fragments  are  discussed 
in  much  detail  by  E.  von  Dobsckntz ,  Das  Kerygma  Petri  kritisch  unter- 
sucht,  Leipzig,  1893  (Texte  und  Untersuchungen,  xi.  i).  Cf.  Hilgenfeld, 
in  Zeitschr.  fur  wissenschaftl.  Theol.  (1893),  ii.  518 — 541,  and  Zahn,  Gesch. 
des  neutestamentl.  Kanons  (1892),  ii.  2,  820 — 832,  881 — 885.  Apart  from 
their  title,  the  IKtpou  xrrjpuffJiaTtt,  that  pretend  to  be  the  basis  of  the  Cle 
mentines  (cf.  §  26,  3),  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  above-mentioned  text. 
The  «  Doctrine  of  Simon  Cephas  in  the  City  ofRome»,  a  Syriac  text  of  which 
was  published  by  W.  Cureton,  Ancient  Syriac  Documents,  London,  1864, 
pp.  35 — 41 ,  is  not  older  than  the  latter  half  of  the  fourth  century.  Cf. 
Lipsius ,  Die  apokryphen  Apostelgeschichten  und  Apostellegenden  (1887), 
ii.  i,  206  sq.  --  A.  Smith  Lewis ,  The  mythological  Acts  of  the  Apostles 
translated  from  an  Arabic  manuscript  in  the  Convent  of  Deyr-es-Suriani, 
Egypt,  and  from  mss.  in  the  Convent  of  St.  Catherine  of  Mount  Sinai,  and 
in  the  Vatican  Library.  With  a  translation  of  the  palimpsest  fragments  of 
the  Acts  of  Judas  Thomas  from  Cod.  Sin.  Syr.  (Horae  Semiticae,  iii.  iv 
[London,  1904]  xlvi,  265  ;  viii,  228  pp.).  y.  G.  Tasker,  Mythological  Acts 
of  the  Apostles,  in  Expository  Times  (1904),  pp.  no — in. 

2.  THE  ACTS  OF  PETER.  In  their  original  form  the  Acts  (itpdfeiQ) 
of  Peter  are  an  extended  Gnostic  narrative  of  the  doings  and  suf 
ferings  of  the  prince  of  the  Apostles,  composed  shortly  after  the 
middle  of  the  second  century;  the  story  has  reached  us  in  a  respect- 

1  Hist,  eccl.,   iii.   3,   2  ;  cf.  Hier.,  De  viris  illustr.,   c.    i. 
-  Sacra  Parallela:   Migne,  PG.,   xcv.    1157,    1461. 
3  Cf.   Orig.,  De  princ.  praef.   n.   8  :  Petri  doctrina. 

§    30-       APOCRYPHAL    ACTS    OF    THE    APOSTLES.  99 

able  number  of  fragments.  The  account  of  the  martyrdom  of  the 
Apostle,  which  certainly  formed  the  conclusion  of  the  work,  is  extant 
in  the  original  Greek  (fjLapTUpwv  TOO  ay'iou  dizoGToXou  Ilirpoo)  and  in 
a  rhetorically  enlarged  Latin  version  (Martyrium  Beati  Petri  a  Lino 
episcopo  conscriptum)'.  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  in  this  inscription 
it  is  Linus,  the  first  successor  of  Peter,  who  is  meant.  A  revised 
text  is  also  found  in  Old -Slavonic,  Coptic  (Sahidic),  Arabic,  and 
Ethiopic.  Of  the  two  Greek  codices  hitherto  known,  one  has  pre 
served,  together  with  the  account  of  the  martyrdom,  a  small  frag 
ment  of  the  preceding  narrative.  A  larger  fragment  is  attached  to 
the  martyrdom  in  a  rudely-executed  Latin  version  known  as  Actus 
Petri  cum  Simone.  This  text,  as  just  said,  represents  the  most  im 
portant  of  the  extant  fragments  of  the  ancient  Acts  of  Peter.  In  it 
are  told  the  labours  of  St.  Peter  at  Rome,  his  triumph  over  Simon 
Magus  in  the  performance  of  miracles,  the  wretched  end  of  the 
magician  in  consequence  of  his  attempted  flight  to  heaven,  and 
at  great  length  the  glorious  martyrdom  of  the  Apostle  who  was 
crucified  head  downward.  That  it  is  a  work  of  Gnostic  origin  and 
nature  is  plain  from  its  Docetism,  its  prohibition  of  sexual  inter 
course  even  among  married  persons,  and  its  celebration  of  the 
Eucharist  with  bread  and  water.  The  first  certain  evidence  of  it  is 
in  Commodian1,  though  the  actual  title  is  first  mentioned  by  Eusebius2 
who  says  that  it  was  an  heretical  work.  According  to  Lipsius  and 
Zahn  it  was  written  about  160 — I/O,  and  by  the  author  of  the  Acts 
of  John  (see  p.  105),  if  similarity  of  ideas  and  diction  are  enough  to 
prove  the  identity  of  authorship.  Pope  Innocent  I.  (401 — 417)  de 
clared3  that  the  afore-mentioned  Leucius  (cf.  §  28,  3)  was  the  author 
of  both  the  Acts  of  Peter  and  the  Acts  of  John. 

The  fragments  of  the  Acts  of  Peter  are  found  in  Acta  apostolorum 
apocrypha,  edd.  R.  A.  Lipsius  et  M.  Bonnet,  part  I,  Leipzig,  1891.  In  this 
work  were  first  published  from  a  Cod.  Vercellensis  (saec.  vii)  the  Actus  Petri 
cum  Simone,  pp.  45 — 103.  Lipsius  had  already  published,  in  Jahrbiicher 
fiir  prot.  Theol.  (1886),  xii.  86  ff.  (cf.  p.  175  ff.),  the  jj-ap-rupiov  TOU  dfi'ou 
aTrocjToXou  IIsTpou  that  is  found,  pp.  78—102,  in  Lipsius  and  Bonnet;  cf. 
ib.,  proleg.,  pp.  xiv  ff.,  for  an  account  of  some  earlier  unserviceable  editions 
of  the  Martyrium  Beati  Petri  apostoli  a  Lino  episcopo  conscriptum,  pp.  i — 22. 
For  the  Old-Slavonic,  Coptic,  Arabic,  and  Ethiopic  versions  of  the  martyr 
dom,  cf.  Lipsius  and  Bonnet,  proleg.,  pp.  LIV.  ff.  We  have  already  men 
tioned  (§  25,  3)  a  Coptic  Ilpacjis  llsrpou  of  Gnostic  origin. 

An  Armenian  version  of  the  martyrdom  of  Peter  was  published  by 
P.  Vetter ,  Die  armenischen  apokryphen  Apostelakten ,  i.  Das  gnostische 
Martyrium  Petri,  in  Oriens  christianus  (1901),  i.  217 — 239.  The  Acts  of 
Peter  are  more  fully  treated  by  Lipsius,  Die  apokryphen  Apostelgeschichten 
und  Apostellegenden  (1887),  ii.  i,  85  —284,  and  in  the  supplement  (1890), 

1  Carm.   apolog.   626,   ed.  Dombarl. 

"  Hist,   eccl.,  iii.  3,   2;   cf.  Hier.,  De  viris  illustr.,  c.   i. 

3  Ep.   6  ad  Exsup.,  c.   7. 

8J8,  MAJ. 


pp.  34  —  47.  Zahn,  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons,  ii.  2,  832  —  855. 
J.  Frankoy  Beitrage  aus  dem  Kirchenslavischen  zu  den  Apokryphen  des 
Neuen  Testaments,  ii:  Zu  den  gnostischen  rrspioooi  fU-rpou,  in  Zeitschr.  fiir 
die  neutestamentl.  Wissensch.  (1902),  iii.  3157-335.  A.  Baumstark  ,  Die 
Petrus-  und  Paulusakten  in  der  literarischen  Uberlieferung  der  syrischen 
Kirche,  Leipzig,  1902,  and  P.  Peeters  ,  in  Analecta  Bolland.  (1902),  xxi. 
121  —  140.  A.  Hilgenfeld,  Die  alten  Actus  Petri,  in  Zeitschr.  fiir  wissen- 
schaftl.  Theol.  (1903),  xlvi.  322  —  341.  K.  Schmidt,  Die  alten  Petrusakten 
im  Zusammenhang  der  apokryphen  Apostelliteratur,  nebst  einem  neuent- 
deckten  Fragment  untersucht,  in  Texte  und  Untersuchungen  ,  new  series, 
ix.  i.  G.  Picker,  Die  Petrusakten,  Beitrage  zu  ihrem  Verstandnis,  Leipzig, 
1904.  It  is  strange  that  Harnack  (Gesch.  der  altchristl.  Literatur,  ii.  i, 
449  f.)  should  reject  the  Gnostic  origin  and  tendency  of  the  Acts  of  Peter, 
and  refer  them  to  the  middle  of  the  third  century.  James  ,  on  the  other 
hand,  has  lately  defended  the  identity  of  the  author  of  the  Acts  of 
Peter  with  the  second  century  writer  of  the  Acts  of  John.  Cf.  Apocrypha 
Anecdota,  2.  series  (Cambridge,  1897),  pp.  xxiv  flf.  ;  also  Harnack,  Texte 
und  Untersuchungen,  new  series  (1900),  v.  3,  100  —  106. 

3.  THE  ACTS  OF  PAUL.  About  the  time  (160  —  170)  of  the 
publication  of  the  Gnostic  Acts  of  Peter,  Catholic  Acts  (npasstt;)  of 
Paul  were  put  in  circulation.  Eusebius1  places  them  among  the 
dvTde^ofjieva  of  the  New  Testament  ;  Origen  2  cites  them  twice  in  a 
friendly  and  approving  way;  Hippolytus3  treats  them,  without  specific 
mention  of  their  title,  as  a  well-known  and  accepted  historical  book. 
It  is  very  probable  that  the  Preaching  of  Paul  mentioned  in  the  De 
rebaptismate  (see  p.  98)  is  none  other  than  these  Acts  of  Paul. 
In  the  so-called  Catalogus  Claromontanus,  an  index  of  the  biblical 
books  made  about  300,  the  length  of  these  Acts  is  put  down  as 
3560  verses  or  lines.  In  the  Stichometria  attributed  to  Nicephorus, 
patriarch  of  Constantinople  (806  —  815),  they  are  set  down  as  containing 
3600  lines.  It  is  only  lately  that  more  light  has  been  thrown  on  such 
high  figures  by  the  discovery  that  the  Acts  of  Paul  and  Thecla  (see  p.  102) 
and  the  apocryphal  Correspondence  of  Paul  and  the  Corinthians  (§3.1,  3) 
are  in  reality  parts  of  the  original  Acts  of  Paul,  although  at  a  very 
early  date  these  two  sections  took  on  an  independent  form.  The  proof 
of  this  was  furnished  in  1897  by  Schmidt's  discovery  at  Heidelberg,  in 
a  papyrus-roll,  of  fragments  of  a  Coptic  version  of  the  Acts  of  Paul. 
Confirmation  was  soon  forthcoming  from  the  so-called  Caena  Cypriani, 
a  biblical  cento,  probably  of  the  fifth  century,  for  the  composition  of 
which,  as  Harnack  saw  (1899),  not  only  were  the  biblical  writings  used, 
but  also  the  Acts  of  Paul  in  their  complete  form.  Besides  these  two 
larger  sections  of  the  Acts  of  Paul,  there  has  also  been  preserved 
the  conclusion  of  this  lengthy  work,  its  martyrdom-narrative,  both  in 
the  Greek  original  (fiaproptov  TOO  afiou  dxoaToko'j  IlauXov)  and  in 

1  Hist,  eccl.,   iii.   3,    5;   25,   4. 

2  Comm.   in  Joan.,   xx.    12;   De  princ.,   i.   2,   3. 

3  Comm.  in  Dan.,  iii.   29,  4,   ed.   Bonwelsch. 

§    30.       APOCRYPHAL    ACTS    OF    THE    APOSTLES.  IOI 

several  translations:  Latin,  Slavonic,  Coptic  (Sahidic),  Arabic,  Ethiopic. 
Hitherto  only  fragments  of  the  Latin  translation,  in  its  original  form, 
have  been  recognized  and  published ;  its  complete  text  has  reached 
us  in  a  later  recension.  In  the  more  recent  manuscripts  of  this 
text  it  is  ascribed  to  Pope  Linus  (see  p.  99),  while  the  earlier  manu 
scripts  present  it  as  an  anonymous  work :  Passio  Sancti  Pauli  apostoli. 
According  to  this  narrative  Paul  preached  at  Rome  with  great  suc 
cess  concerning  the  Eternal  King,  Jesus  Christ,  and  thereby  irritated 
Nero  who  issued  edicts  of  persecution  against  the  « soldiers  of  the 
Great  King».  By  the  Emperor's  order  Paul  was  beheaded.  That 
these  Acts  were  of  Catholic  origin  is  proven  by  the  evidence  of  those 
who  first  mention  them :  Hippolytus,  Origen,  and  Eusebius.  Moreover 
no  traces  of  heresy,  especially  of  Gnosticism,  have  been  found  in 
the  extant  fragments. 

For  the  Greek  and  the  two  Latin  texts  of  the  martyrdom  of  Paul,  of. 
Lipsius,  in  Acta  apost.  apocr.,  edd.  Lipsius  et  Bonnet,  part  L,  1891 ;  Lipsius 
had  already  made  known  the  Greek  text  (ib.  104 — 117)  and  the  earlier 
Latin  text  (ib.  105 — 113)  (passionis  Pauli  fragmentum),  in  Jahrbiicher  fur 
prot.  Theol.  (1886),  xii.  86  ff.  (cf.  175  ff.)  and  334  sq.  (cf.  691  ff.). 

The  later  Latin  text  (Lipsius  and  Bonnet,  23 — 44)  was  already  well- 
known;  cf.  Lipsius,  proleg. ,  pp.  xiv  ff. ,  and  ib.,  pp.  LVI  ff..  for  the  Sla 
vonic,  Coptic,  Arabic,  and  Ethiopic  versions.  The  Acts  of  Paul  are  dis 
cussed  in  detail  by  Lipsius  s  Die  apokryphen  Apostelgeschichten  und  Apostel- 
legenden,  ii.  i,  85 — 284,  and  in  the  Supplement,  pp.  34 — 47.  Zahn,  Gesch. 
des  neutestament.  Kanons,  ii.  2,  865 — 891.  On  the  original  form  and  the 
remnants  of  the  Acts  of  Paul  cf.  C.Schmidt,  in  Neue  Heidelberger  Jahrbiicher 
(1897),  vii.  117 — 124;  Harnack,  in  Texte  und  Untersuchungen,  xix,  new 
series  (1899),  iv.  3b;  P.  Corssen,  Die  Urgestalt  der  Paulusakten,  in  Zeitschr. 
fur  die  neutestamentl.  Wissensch.  (1903),  iv.  22 — 47  ;  C.  Schmidt,  Acta  Pauli, 
aus  der  Heidelberger  koptischen  Papyrus-Handschrift ,  n.  i,  Ubersetzung, 
Untersuchungen  und  koptischer  Text,  Leipzig,  1904,  LVI,  240,  80  pp.  A 
photographic  facsimile  of  the  Coptic  text  was  published  by  Schmidt  (ib., 
1904).  See  Shahan,  Cath.  Univ.  Bulletin  (Washington,  1905),  x.  484 — 488. 

4.  THE  ACTS  OF  PETER  AND  PAUL.  The  origin  of  these  Acts  is 
very  obscure.  Unlike  the  two  preceding,  they  contain  the  later 
history  of  both  the  Apostles  and  tend  to  show  a  close  homogeneity 
and  a  continuous  concord  between  the  two  Apostles.  Lipsius  be 
lieves  that  they  also  were  composed  in  the  second  century.  There  are, 
however,  only  very  obscure  traces  of  them  before  the  fifth  century, 
in  Hippolytus1,  Cyril  of  Jerusalem2,  Asterius  ofAmasea3,  and  Sulpicius 
Severus 4.  The  work  was  surely  of  Catholic  origin,  and  probably 
compiled  with  the  purpose  of  withdrawing  from  the  hands  of  the 
faithful  the  heretical  Acts  of  Peter  (see  p.  98).  All  extant  fragments 
show  evidence  of  a  later  revision.  The  Greek  texts,  usually  entitled 

1  Philos.,  vi.   20.  2  Catech.  6,   c.    15. 

3  Horn.   8  in  SS.  Apost.   Petr.   et  Paul.,  sub  fine;   cf.  Migne,  PG.,  xl.   297  ff. 

*  Chron.  ii.   28. 


rcbv  ayicov  diiocrTohoy  IHrpoo  YJU  IlaoXoo,  relate  the  journey 
of  St.  Paul  to  Rome  and  the  martyrdom  of  both  Apostles.  One 
Greek  codex  (Marcianus  ,  saec.  xvi)  relates  only  the  martyrdom 
fft&pTijptov  rwv  afiajv  dxoaroXcov  IHrpoo  xal  ffafikooji  and  is  silent  as 
to  the  Roman  journey;  even  in  its  account  of  the  former  it  offers 
a  text  that  differs  much  from  the  other  Greek  codices,  while  it 
presents  a  close  affinity  with  an  early  Latin  version,  which  also 
omits  the  journey  to  Rome  and  is  likewise  entitled  Passio  sancto 
rum  apostolorum  Petri  et  Pauli.  There  are  extant  also  an  Old- 
Slavonic  and  an  Old  -Italian  version.  It  seems  certain  that  the 
basis  of  the  journey-narrative  is  found  in  the  story  of  St.  Paul's  journey 
from  the  island  of  Cauda  to  Rome  described  in  the  canonical  Acts 
of  the  Apostles  (cc.  xxvii  —  xxviii).  In  its  account  of  the  martyrdom 
of  the  Apostles  this  work  profited  much  by  the  similar  narrative  in 
the  Acts  of  Peter. 

The  Greek  text  of  the  martyrdom  of  both  Apostles  and  of  the  journey  to 
Rome  was  edited  by  J.  C.  Thilo,  in  two  programmes  of  the  University  of  Halle, 
1837  —  1838;  by  C.  Tischendorf,  in  his  Acta  apostol.  apocrypha,  pp.  i  —  39; 
by  Lipsius,  in  Acta  apost.  apocr.,  edd.  Lipsius  and  Bonnet,  i.  178  —  222. 
In  addition  Lipsius  reprinted  (ib.,  pp.  118  —  176)  the  second  recension  of 
the  Greek  text,  minus  the  journey-narrative  (codex  Marcianus  saec.  xvi),  also 
the  early  Latin  version  of  the  martyrdom  (pp.  119  —  177),  and  a  later  Latin 
compilation  on  the  martyrdom  of  the  two  Apostles  (pp.  223  —  234).  For 
the  early-Slavonic  and  Italian  versions  cf.  ib.,  proleg.  pp.  LXXXIX  ff.,  and 
Lipsius,  Die  apokryphen  Apostelgeschichten  und  Apostellegenden,  ii.  i,  284 
to  390.  Supplement,  pp.  47  —  61.  P.  Vetter,  Die  armenischen  apokryphen 
Apostelakten,  ii  :  Die  Akten  der  Apostel  Petrus  und  Paulus,  in  Oriens  Christi- 
anus  (1903),  pp.  16—55. 

5.  THE  ACTS  OF  PAUL  AND  THECLA.  These  Acts  have  come  to  us 
down  in  their  Greek  text,  likewise  in  several  Latin  translations  and  in 
Syriac,  Armenian,  Slavonic,  and  Arabic  recensions.  In  the  manu 
scripts  the  Greek  text  bears  the  title  Kpd&iq  DaoXoo  xai  Oextys,  also 
fjLapTijpiov  TTjQ  frficLQ  npoTOfidpTUpOQ  OsxtyQ  ,  or  the  like.  Jerome 
calls  it  Ttepiodot  Pauli  et  Theclae1.  The  object  of  the  very  simple 
and  unpretending  tale  is  the  story  of  Thecla,  a  noble  virgin  of 
Iconium  in  Lycaonia.  Fascinated  by  the  preaching  of  St.  Paul  she 
resolves  on  abandoning  her  betrothed  to  serve  God  in  the  state  of 
virginity.  For  this  decision  she  suffers  many  torments  and  persecutions. 
After  her  miraculous  liberation  she  devotes  herself  to  the  preaching  of 
the  Gospel,  with  the  consent  and  by  the  commission  of  the  Apostle. 
There  is  probably  an  historical  nucleus  to  the  narrative  —  the  conver 
sion  and  martyrdom  of  a  Thecla  of  Iconium,  the  portrait  of  St.  Paul 
(c.  3),  the  meeting  of  Thecla  with  Queen  Tryphaena  (cc.  27  ff,  39  ff). 
But  the  truth  is  overlaid  with  much  that  is  fanciful  ;  in  general  these 
Acts  are  a  highly  romantic  work  of  imagination.  The  historical  frame- 

1  De  viris  illustr.,  c.   7. 

§    3°-      APOCRYPHAL    ACTS    OF   THE    APOSTLES.  IC>3 

work  of  the  narrative  is  furnished  by  the  so-called  first  journey  of 
St.  Paul,  described  in  the  canonical  Acts  (cc.  xiii — xiv),  and  many  of 
the  characters  that  figure  in  it  are  drawn  from  the  Second  Epistle  to 
Timothy.  Since  the  third  and  fourth  centuries,  the  Thecla-legend, 
originally  vouched  for  by  these  Acts  of  Paul  and  Thecla,  spread 
widely  throughout  the  whole  Church.  Tertullian  relates 1  that  they 
were  composed  by  a  priest  of  Asia  Minor  who  was  possessed  by 
a  fanatical  admiration  for  St.  Paul.  For  this  action  the  priest  was 
deposed  from  his  office.  Jerome  repeats  (1.  c.)  the  statement  of  Ter 
tullian,  with  the  addition  that  the  judgment  of  the  priest  took  place 
in  the  presence  of  the  Apostle  John  (apud  Joannem),  an  assertion 
which  is  surely  erroneous.  It  has  been  lately  shown  (see  p.  100)  that 
the  Acts  of  Paul  and  Thecla  are  only  a  fragment  of  the  Acts  of 
Paul;  hence  they  were  composed  about  160 — 170.  It  is  quite  cre 
dible  that  the  Acts  of  Paul  were  written  by  a  Catholic  priest;  he 
was  punished,  not  so  much  because  he  put  forth  unecclesiastical 
doctrine,  as  because  he  gave  currency  to  historical  falsehoods. 

The  Greek  text  of  the  Acts  of  Paul  and  Thecla  is  found  in  J.  E.  Grabe, 
Spicilegium  SS.  Patrum  ut  et  haereticorum,  Oxford,  1698,  i.  95 — 119  (and 
thence  in  Gallandi,  Bibl.  vet.  Patr.,  Venice,  1765,  i.  177 — 191);  Tischen- 
dorf3  Acta  apost.  apocr.,  pp.  40 — 63.  Lipsius,  Acta  apost.  apocr. ,  edd. 
Lipsius  et  Bonnet,  i.  235 — 272.  There  are  in  print  three  ancient  Latin 
versions  of  the  Acts,  one  in  the  collection  of  Legends  of  the  Saints, 
published  at  Milan  in  1476  by  B.  Mombritius  (without  title  or  pagination),  a 
second  in  Grabe  1.  c.,  pp.  120 — 127  (Gallandi\.  c.),  the  third  in  Bibliotheca 
Casinensis  iii,  (1877),  Florileg.  271 — 276.  O.  v.  Gebhardt,  Passio  S.  Theclae 
virginis.  Die  lateinische  Ubersetzung  der  Acta  Pauli  et  Theclae,  nebst 
Fragmenten,  Ausziigen  und  Beilagen  (Texte  und  Untersuchungen ,  new 
series,  vii.  2),  Leipzig,  1902.  W.  Wright  published  and  translated  the  Syriac 
version  of  these  Acts  in  his  Apocryphal  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  London, 
1871,  i.  127  — 169  (Syriac);  ii.  116 — 145  (English).  The  Armenian  version 
was  translated  into  English  by  F.  C.  Conybeare,  The  Apology  and  Acts 
of  Apollonius  and  other  Monuments  of  Early  Christianity,  London,  1894; 
2.  ed.  1896.  For  a  Slavonic  and  an  Arabic  translation  of  the  Acts  cf. 
Lipsius  1.  c.,  proleg.,  p.  en.  C,  Schlau ,  Die  Akten  des  Paulus  und  der 
Thekla  und  die  altere  Thekla-Legende,  Leipzig,  1877.  Lipsius,  Die  apo- 
kryphen  Apostelgeschichten,  ii.  i,  424 — 467;  Supplement,  pp.  61  sq.  104. 
A.  Rey ,  £tude  sur  les  Acta  Pauli  et  Theclae  et  la  le'gende  de  The'cla, 
Paris,  1890.  Zahn ,  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons,  ii.  2,  892 — 910. 
Harnack ,  Gesch.  der  altchristl.  Literatur,  i.  136  —  138  (Preuschen)\  ii.  i, 
493 — 505.  W.  M.  Ramsay ,  The  Church  in  the  Roman  Empire  before 
A.  D.  170,  2.  ed.,  London,  1893,  pp.  375 — 428.  Id.,  A  Lost  Chapter  of 
Early  Christian  History  (Acta  Pauli  et  Theclae),  in  Expositor,  1902, 
pp.  278 — 295.  Cf.  J.  Gwynn,  Thecla,  in  Diet,  of  Christ.  Biogr.  (London, 
1887),  iv.  882—896. 

6.  THE  ACTS  OF  ANDREW.  Eusebius2  is  the  first  to  mention  Acts 
(irpd£etgj  of  the  Apostle  Andrew,  observing  that  they  were  used  only 
by  «heretics»,  Gnostics  perhaps,  or  Manichseans  according  to  other 

1  De  bapt.,  c.    17.  ~  Hist,  eccl.,  iii.   25,   6. 


writers  *.  The  work  was  held  in  high  esteem  by  the  Priscillianists  2.  Pope 
Innocent  I.  says3  that  its  authors  were  the  « philosophers »  Nexocharides 
(Xenocharides?)  and  Leonidas.  Possibly  he  may  have  found  this  state 
ment  in  the  Acts  themselves,  though  some  have  seen  in  these  names 
a  distortion  of  the  name  of  Leucius  Charinus  (§  28,  3).  The  Acts  are 
certainly  of  Gnostic  origin  and  were  probably  written  in  the  latter  half 
of  the  second  century,  according  to  Lipsius  by  the  author  of  the  Gnostic 
Acts  of  Peter  (see  p.  98)  and  the  Gnostic  Acts  of  John  (see  p.  105). 
Some  fragments  of  the  original  Acts  of  Andrew  have  been  preserved 
in  citations  and  narratives  of  ecclesiastical  writers,  e.  g.  the  story  of  a 
certain  Maximilla  related  by  Evodius  of  Uzalum*,  and  the  prayer  of 
Andrew  upon  the  Cross  related  by  the  pseudo- Augustine 5.  Lengthy 
fragments  of  this  work,  which  was  apparently  an  extensive  one,  have 
reached  us  in  recensions  executed  by  Catholic  hands.  Among  the 
printed  fragments  is  a  Greek  text  entitled  Tcpd&u;  'Avdpiou  xal 
Mar&sia  slg  ryv  nbfav  TOJV  dvfypcoTtocpdftov.  It  is  also  found  in  several 
translations:  Syriac,  Coptic  (Sahidic),  Ethiopic,  and  Anglo-Saxon. 
Andrew  frees  miraculously  his  fellow- Apostle  Matthias  who  was  held  in 
prison  by  the  Anthropophagi.  After  suffering  grievous  torments  he 
preaches  the  Gospel  successfully  to  his  captors.  Here  the  narration 
breaks  off  quite  abruptly,  only  to  be  resumed  and  carried  on  in  a 
second  Greek  fragment  entitled  xpdqztQ  rwv  a^iaj^  aTtoaToAcoy  IHrpou 
xai  Avdpia,  preserved  also  in  Slavonic  and  Ethiopic.  Its  subject  is 
the  happy  issue  soon  vouchsafed  to  the  mission  of  the  two  Apostles 
(at  once  companions  and  brothers)  in  the  « city  of  the  Barbarians »  (iv 
T7j  iroAet  TOJV  flapftdpcuv).  Both  « Anthropophagi »  and  «Barbarians» 
are  to  be  looked  for  about  the  shores  of  the  Black  Sea.  The 
ancient  Acts  make  Andrew  go  into  Pontus  from  Greece  (Philastr. 
1.  c.)  and  narrate  his  death  on  the  cross  at  Patrae  in  Achaia.  His 
death  is  the  theme  of  the  [jtapropiov  TOO  afiov  dito0T6Aov  'Avdplou, 
which  we  possess  both  in  a  Greek  and  a  Latin  text.  It  pretends  to 
be  the  work  of  his  personal  disciples  and  eye-witnesses  of  the  facts, 
i.  e.  of  « priests  and  deacons  of  the  churches  of  Achaia »,  but  is 
probably  not  older  than  the  fifth  century.  Lipsius  is  of  opinion 
that  the  Greek  text  is  the  original  and  the  Latin  a  translation, 
but  Bonnet  is  doubtless  right  in  maintaining  that  the  Latin  is  the 
original,  and  he  distinguishes  two  Greek  versions. 

The  «Acts  of  Andrew  and  Matthias  in  the  City  of  the  Anthropophagi » 
were  edited  in  Greek  by  Thilo,  in  a  program  of  the  University  of  Halle 
in  1846,  and  by  Tischendorf,  in  Acta  apost.  apocr.,  pp.  132 — 166;  cf.  the 
Appendix  in  Tischendorf,  Apocalypses  apocr.,  pp.  139 — 141.  For  the  various 

1  Epiph.,  Haer.,  47,    I  ;   61,    i;   63,   2.     Philastr.,  De  haeres.,   c.  88. 

2  Turib.,  Ep.  ad  Idac.  et  Cepon.,   c.   5.  3  Ep.  6  ad  Exsup.,   c.   7. 

4  De  fide  contra  Manichaeos,   c.   38. 

5  De  vera  et  falsa  poenitentia,  c.   8,   22. 

§    30.      APOCRYPHAL    ACTS    OF   THE    APOSTLES.  IC>5 

versions  cf.  Lipsius ,  Die  apokryphen  Apostelgeschichten ,  i.  546  ff.,  and 
Supplement,  pp.  259  ff.  The  «Acts  of  the  holy  Apostles  Peter  and  Andrew » 
were  published  in  Greek  by  Tischendorf ,  Apocal.  apocr. ,  pp.  161 — 167. 
For  the  versions  cf.  Lipsius,  \.  c.,  i.  553.  The  « Martyrdom  of  the  holy 
Apostle  Andrew»  was  published  in  Greek  by  C.  Chr.  Woog,  Leipzig,  1749 
(Gallandi ,  Bibl.  vet.  Patr.,  Venice,  1765,  pp.  152 — 165),  and  by  Tischen 
dorf,  Acta  apost.  apocr.,  pp.  105 — 131.  An  Italian  version  from  the  Greek 
was  brought  out  by  M.  Mallio,  Venice,  1797,  and  Milan,  1882.  The  Latin 
text  of  these  Acts  was  already  printed  by  Mombritius  (see  p.  103),  in  his 
Leggendario,  and  has  since  been  often  reprinted  (cf.  Gallandi,  1.  c.).  All 
the  aforenamed  Greek  and  Latin  texts,  with  some  new  pieces,  including 
a  long  Greek  fragment  «Ex  actis  Andreae»  (38 — 45)  were  edited  by 
Bonnet,  in  the  Acta  apost.  apocr.  of  Lipsius  and  Bonnet  (1898),  ii.  i,  i 
to  127.  In  Lipsius,  1.  c.,  i,  545  ff . ,  there  is  a  discussion  of  more  recent 
recensions  of  the  legend  of  Andrew.  Three  works  quoted  by  Lipsius 
from  the  manuscripts  have  since  been  published  by  Bonnet,  in  Analecta 
Bollandiana  (1894),  xiii.  309 — 378,  and  separately  in  Supplementum  codicis 
apocryphi,  Paris,  1895,  ii;  Acta  Andreae  cum  laudatione  contexta  (Greek); 
Martyrium  Andreae  (Greek);  Passio  Andreae  (Latin).  For  the  Slavonic 
version  of  the  Acts  of  Andrew  cf.  M.  N.  Speranskij ,  The  Apocryphal 
Acts  of  the  Apostle  Andrew  in  the  Old-Slavonic  texts  (Russian),  Moscow, 
1894.  On  the  Acts  of  Andrew  in  general  cf.  Lipsius,  1.  c.,  i.  543 — 622, 
and  Supplement,  pp.  28 — 31. 

7.  THE  ACTS  OF  JOHN.  With  the  Acts  of  Andrew  Eusebius 
couples1  certain  Acts  (npdqsiq)  of  the  Apostle  John,  he  also  places 
them  among  the  heretical  works  forbidden  by  the  Church.  Other 
writers  say  that  both  the  Acts  of  John  and  the  Acts  of  Andrew 
were  in  use  among  the  Gnostices,  Manichaeans,  and  Priscillianists 2. 
Very  probably  the  writer  is  identical  with  the  author  of  the  Acts 
of  Peter  (see  p.  98),  perhaps  of  those  of  Andrew  (see  p.  103). 
They  are  surely  of  Gnostic  origin,  and  are  as  old  as  the  second 
century;  for  Clement  of  Alexandria  cites  them3.  Their  original 
text  has  been  lost,  but  the  substance  of  their  contents  has  reached 
us  through  later  Catholic  recensions  of  the  Johannine  Legend. 
The  principal  subject  of  these  Acts  seems  to  have  been  the  journey 
of  John  into  Asia  (Minor)  and  the  miracles  performed  by  him  at 
Ephesus.  They  pass  lightly  over  his  (three  years')  exile  in  Patmos, 
are  very  diffuse  as  to  the  Apostle's  second  sojourn  at  Ephesus,  and  close 
with  the  story  of  the  peaceful  death  of  their  hero.  We  really  have  little 
information  about  the  Gnostic  Acts  of  John.  In  the  Acts  of  the  Second 
Council  of  Nicaea  (787)  are  preserved  three  genuine  fragments  of 
their  original  text.  One  of  them  refers  to  a  portrait  of  St.  John, 
and  was  quoted  by  the  iconoclastic  synod  of  Constantinople  (754) 
against  the  veneration  of  images.  The  other  two  were  quoted  at  the 
above  mentioned  Council  of  Nicaea  as  proof  of  the  heretical  origin 

1  Hist,  eccl.,  iii.  25,   6. 

2  Epiph.,    Haer.  47,    I.     Philastr.,    De  haeres.,   c.   88.     Aug.,    Contra  adv.  legis  et 
prophet.,  i.   20,   39.      Turib.,  Ep.   ad  Idac.   et  Cepon.,   c.   5. 

3  Adumbr.  in    I   lo.   i.    I. 


and  character  of  the  Acts  of  John,  the  source  of  the  pretended  apo 
stolic  testimony.  These  latter  excerpts  are  met  with  in  a  still  longer 
fragment,  first  published  by  James  under  the  title:  « Wonderful  Nar 
ration  (diy-pjfftQ  $ai>naaTYj)  of  the  deeds  and  visions  which  the  holy 
John  the  Theologian  saw  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ ».  It  sets 
forth  with  insistency,  and  in  a  tasteless  way,  the  doctrine  of  a  merely 
docetic  body  in  Jesus  Christ.  Other  lengthy  fragments  may  be  attribut 
ed,  with  more  or  less  probability,  to  the  Gnostic  Acts  of  St.  Andrew, 
especially  a  narration  of  the  death  (^rdoraotc,)  of  the  Apostle.  It  is 
extant  in  Greek,  Syriac,  Armenian,  and  other  languages. 

Collections  of  the  fragments  of  the  Gnostic  Acts  of  John  were  made 
by  ThilOy  in  a  programme  of  the  University  of  Halle  1847.  Cf.  Zahn,  Acta 
Joannis,  Erlangen,  1880,  pp.  219  —  252  (LX — CLXXII)  ;  Bonnet,  in  Acta  apost. 
apocr.,  edd.  Lipsius  et  Bonnet  (1898),  ii.  i,  151  —  216.  The  fragment  men 
tioned  is  edited  by  James  in  his  Apocrypha  Anecdota,  2.  series,  pp.  i — 25  \ 
cf.  ix — xxviii.  The  greater  part  of  the  Acta  Joannis  in  Zahn  is  taken  up 
with  a  new  edition  of  the  Greek  narrative  of  the  deeds  of  the  Apostle 
John,  current  under  the  name  of  Prochorus  (cf.  the  canonical  Acts,  vi.  5), 
composed  probably  in  the  first  half  of  the  fifth  century.  For  two  Latin 
recensions  of  the  Johannine  legend  that  are  much  closer  a  kin  to  the 
Gnostic  Acts  than  the  Greek  text  is,  see  Lipsius,  Die  apokryphen  Apostel- 
geschichten ,  i.  408 — 431.  In  his  Monarchianische  Prologe  zu  den  vier 
Evangelien,  Leipzig,  1896,  pp.  73 — 91  (Texte  und  Untersuchungen,  xv.  i), 
P.  Corssen  has  constructed  out  of  the  writings  of  Jerome,  Augustine,  and 
others  an  Historia  ecclesiastica  de  Johanne  apostolo  et  evangelista,  which  he 
claims  was  current  in  the  third  century.  It  probably  never  existed,  at  least 
in  the  proposed  shape.  On  the  Acts  of  John  in  general  cf.  Zahn  1.  c., 
Einleitung,  pp.  m — CLXXII;  Lipsius  1.  c.,  i.  348 — 542,  and  Supplement, 
pp.  25 — 28,  also  Zahn,  in  Neue  kirchl.  Zeitschr.  (1899),  x.  191 — 218. 

8.  THE  ACTS  OF  THOMAS.  The  Acts  (xpd&iq)  of  the  Apostle  Thomas 
have  been  handed  down  in  a  better  text  and  a  more  complete  condition 
than  any  of  the  other  Gnostic  legendary  histories  of  the  Apostles.  It  is 
true  that  the  original  text  is  lost,  but  two  of  the  Catholic  recensions, 
in  Greek  and  Syriac,  date  from  a  very  early  period,  and  present  a 
relatively  clear  vision  of  the  Gnostic  framework  common  to  all.  The 
Syriac  text  was  published  by  Wright  in  1871,  the  Greek  by  Bonnet 
in  1883.  The  principal  difference  between  them  consists  in  the  larger 
number  of  Gnostic  features  that  have  faded  from  the  Syriac,  but 
have  been  preserved  in  the  Greek.  The  theme  of  the  Acts  is 
the  missionary  preaching  of  St.  Thomas  in  India.  The  Greek  text 
is  divided  into  twelve  Acts  (npdSstQ)  that  are  followed  by  the 
martyrdom,  while  the  Syriac  has  but  eight  Acts  and  the  martyr 
dom  ;  the  contents  are  substantially  identical,  however,  as  Acts  7 — 8 
in  the  Syriac  correspond  to  Acts  8 — 12  in  the  Greek  text.  They  are 
filled  with  many  kinds  of  odd  and  vulgar  miracles,  and  aim  mostly 
at  dissuading  their  readers  from  all  sexual  intercourse.  Von  Gut- 
schmid  has  shown  that  the  narrative  contains  both  legendary  and 

§    3°-       APOCRYPHAL    ACTS    OF    THE    APOSTLES.  IO/ 

historical  traits.  The  Indian  king  Gundaphorus,  for  whom,  in  the 
second  Act,  Thomas  builds  a  palace  in  heaven,  is  the  Indo-Parthian 
king  Gondophares,  of  the  first  century  of  the  Christian  era,  otherwise 
known  only  by  coins  and  inscriptions.  The  hypothesis  of  von  Gut- 
schmid  that  the  entire  Thomas-Legend  is  only  a  story  of  Buddhistic 
missionary  preaching,  worked  over  in  a  Christian  sense,  still  remains 
a  pure  conjecture.  Some  poetical  pieces  scattered  through  the  nar 
rative  deserve  attention,  notably  an  Ode  to  Sophia,  said  to  have  been 
sung  by  Thomas  in  Hebrew  (i.  e.  Aramaic)  at  Andrapolis  on  the 
occasion  of  the  wedding  of  the  king's  daugther  (Bonnet,  8  ff.);  also 
two  solemn  prayers  said  to  have  been  uttered  by  Thomas  when 
baptizing  and  wrhen  celebrating  the  Holy  Eucharist  (Bonnet,  20  36); 
finally  a  beautiful,  but  often  very  enigmatic  and  rather  irrelevant,  hymn 
on  the  fate  of  the  soul.  The  latter  is  found  only  in  the  Syriac  text 
(Wright ,  274  ff.).  All  these  poetical  compositions  are  decidedly 
Gnostic  in  character,  and  were  doubtlessly  written  in  Syriac,  perhaps 
by  Bardesanes.  It  seems,  therefore,  certain  that  the  Acts  were  not 
originally  composed  in  Greek  but  in  Syriac,  and  in  the  first  half  of 
the  third  century  at  Edessa,  by  some  disciple  of  Bardesanes.  We 
know  already  (see  p.  87)  from  Ephraem  Syrus  (cf.  §  28,  3)  that  the 
followers  of  Bardesanes  were  wont  to  circulate  apocryphal  Acts  of  the 
Apostles.  The  Thomas-Legend,  therefore,  found  its  readers  in  those 
circles  which  loved  to  read  the  Acts  of  Andrew  and  the  Acts  of  John, 
i.  e.  among  Gnostics,  Manichaeans,  and  Priscillianists1. 

The  Syriac  text  of  the  Acts  was  published  with  an  English  translation 
by  Wright,  Apocryphal  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  i.  171 — 333;  ii.  146 — 298. 
The  Greek  text  was  edited  by  Bonnet ,  Supplementum  codicis  apocryphi, 
i.  i — 95.  Some  fragments  of  the  Greek  text  were  first  edited  by  Thilo, 
Acta  S.  Thomae  apostoli,  Leipzig,  1823.  A  larger  number  appeared  in 
Tischendorf  ,  Acta  apost.  apocr.,  pp.  190 — 242,  and  in  Apocalypses  apocr., 
pp.  156  —  161.  In  Rhein.  Museum  fur  Philologie,  new  series  (1864),  xix. 
161  — 183  (Kleine  Schriften  von  A.  v.  Gutschmid,  Leipzig,  1890,  ii.  332 — 364) 
A.  von  Gutschmid  discussed  the  facts  of  Indian  history  that  are  referred  to  in 
the  Thomas-Legend.  On  King  Gondophares  in  particular,  cf.  A.  von  Sallet, 
Die  Nachfolger  Alexanders  des  Grofien  in  Baktrien  und  Indien ,  Berlin, 
1879,  PP-  T57 — Z66.  On  the  metrical  pieces  in  the  Acts  cf.  K.  Macke,  in 
Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1874),  Ivi.  i — 70.  A  separate  edition  of  the  Hymn 
on  the  Soul  was  prepared  by  A.  A.  Bevan,  Cambridge,  1897,  and  printed  in 
Texts  and  Studies,  v.  3.  M.  Bonnet,  Le  poeme  de  1'ame,  version  grecque 
remaniee  par  Nicetas  de  Thessalonique ,  in  Analecta  Bollandiana  (1901), 
xx.  159 — 164.  For  the  Acts  in  general  cf.  Lipsius,  Die  apokryphen  Apostel- 
geschichten,  i.  225 — 347,  and  Supplement,  pp.  23 — 25,  also  Harnack, 
Gesch.  der  altchristl.  Literattir,  ii.  i,  545 — 549.  Later  recensions  of  the 
Legend  are  treated  by  Lipsius  1.  c.,  i.  240  ff.  Bonnet  (1.  c.)  re-edited  two 
later  Latin  forms  of  the  Legend:  De  miraculis  B.  Thomae  apostoli  (pp.  96 
to  132),  very  probably  by  Gregory  of  Tours,  and  Passio  S.  Thomae  apostoli 

1  Epiph.,  Haer.,  47,  I  ;  61,  I  ;  Aug.,  Contra  Faustum,  xxii.  79,  w\&  passim.  Turib., 
Ep.  ad  Idac.  et  Cepon,  c.  5. 


(pp.  133 — 1 60).  For  a  later  Greek  recension  cf.  James,  Apocrypha  anec- 
dota,  2.  series,  pp.  27 — 45,  and  pp.  xxxn — XLIV.  Bonnet  brought  out  the 
definitive  edition :  Acta  Philippi  et  Acta  Thomae,  accedunt  Acta  Barnabae, 
etc.,  ed.  M.  Bonnet,  Leipzig,  1903  (Acta  apost.  apocr.,  edd.  Lipsius  et 
Bonnet,  ii.  2).  A.  Mandni,  Per  la  critica  degli  «Acta  apocrypha  Thomae», 
in  Atti  della  R.  Accad.  di  scienze  di  Torino  (1904),  xxxix.  11  —  13. 

9.  THE  ACTS  OF  PHILIP.  The  Acts  of  Philip  are  very  seldom  men 
tioned  in  antiquity.  We  meet  them  for  the  first  time  in  the  so-called 
Gelesian  Decretal  De  recipiendis  et  non  recipiendis  libris  under  the  title 
Actus  nomine  Philippi  apostoli  apocryphi.  Of  the  original  fifteen  Acts 
of  the  Greek  text  faepiodot  fttXiitnoo  TOV  dTtoaroXou)  we  possess  only 
fragments,  the  first  nine  and  the  fifteenth  Act.  The  latter  contains  the 
martyrdom  of  the  Apostle.  The  description  they  offer  of  the  missionary 
travels  of  the  Apostle  is  very  obscure  and  confused.  In  the  second 
Act,  Philip  reaches  the  «city  of  the  Athenians  called  Hellas »;  in  the 
third  Act  he  goes  from  Athens  to  Parthia,  thence  into  the  land  of  the 
«Candacii»  and  to  Azotus.  In  the  fifth,  sixth,  and  seventh  Acts  we  find 
him  again  in  Hellas  at  Nicatera.  In  the  eighth  Act  he  goes  to  the 
land  of  the  serpent-worshippers  fsiQ  ryv  '/wpav  TWV  Vy>tava)vj,  i.  e.  to 
Hierapolis  in  Phrygia,  where,  in  the  fifteenth  Act,  he  meets  with 
death.  There  is  in  these  Acts  a  confusion  of  the  Apostle  Philip  with 
Philip  the  Deacon.  The  imaginary  journey  to  the  land  of  the  Can- 
dacii,  and  the  action  of  the  Apostle  at  Azotus,  are  based  on  an  ignorant 
misinterpretation  of  the  canonical  Acts  (viii.  27,  Queen  Candace)  and 
the  sojourn  of  the  Apostle  Philip  at  Azotus  (Acts  viii.  40).  A  Syriac 
legend  concerning  the  doings  of  the  Apostle  Philip  distorts  still  more 
gravely  the  truth  of  these  chapters,  when  it  makes  the  Apostle  preach 
in  «the  City  of  Carthage  that  is  in  Azotus ».  In  the  opinion  of  Lipsius 
we  have  in  the  Greek  text  of  these  Acts  a  Catholic  revision  of  a  lost 
Gnostic  original  composed  during  the  third  century.  Zahn  holds  them 
to  be  original  compositions,  made,  at  the  earliest,  about  the  end  of 
the  fourth  century. 

The  Greek  text  of  the  second  and  the  fifteenth  Acts  of  Philip  are  in 
Tischendorf,  Acta  apost.  apocr.,  pp.  75 — 104.  The  first  Act  and  the  Acts  3 — 9 
were  edited  by  P.  Batiffol,  in  Analecta  Bollandiana  (1890),  ix.  204 — 249. 
In  his  Apocalypses  apocr.,  pp.  141 — 156,  Tischendorf  published  two  later 
Greek  recensions  of  the  fifteenth  Act  (the  martyrdom).  Cf.  James ,  Apo 
crypha  anecdota,  pp.  158—163.  For  the  Syriac  text  of  the  Acts  of  Philip 
cf.  Wright,  Apocryphal  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  i.  73 — 99;  ii.  69 — 92.  In 
general  cf.  Lipsius,  Die  apokryphen  Apostelgeschichten,  ii.  2,  i — 53;  and 
Supplement,  pp.  64 — 73  94  260.  H.  O.  Stolten  and  Lipsius,  in  Jahrbiicher 
fiir  prot.  Theol.  (1891),  xvii.  149 — 160  459 — 473.  Zahn,  Forschungen 
zur  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons  (1900),  vi.  18 — 24. 

10.  THE  ACTS  OF  MATTHEW.  Of  these  Acts  only  the  conclusion 
or  martyrdom-narrative  has  reached  us.  At  Myrne,  the  city  of  the 
Anthropophagi,  Matthew  closed  his  glorious  career  in  the  service  of 

§    30-       APOCRYPHAL    ACTS    OF    THE    APOSTLES. 

the  Gospel  by  a  martyrdom  of  fire,  at  the  order  of  King  Fulbanus. 
During  the  martyrdom,  and  after  the  death  of  the  Apostle,  astounding 
miracles  took  place  that  shook  the  obstinacy  even  of  the  king,  who 
was  converted  and  became  a  bishop.  Apparently,  the  narrative  is 
only  a  fragment;  Lipsius  deems  it  the  remnant  of  an  old  Gnostic 
tale  concerning  Matthew,  revised  in  the  third  century  by  Catholics. 
However,  both  the  date  and  the  Gnostic  origin  of  the  legend  are  still 
doubtful.  No  ecclesiastical  writer  of  antiquity  mentions  these  Acts. 

For  the  Greek  text  of  the  Martyrium  of  Matthew  cf.  Tischcndorf,  Acta 
apost.  apocr.,  pp.  167  — 189.  Bonnet  has  added  an  ancient  Latin  recension, 
in  Acta  apost.  apocr.,  edd.  Lipsius  et  Bonnet  (1898),  ii.  i,  217—262.  In 
general  cf.  Lipsms ,  Die  apokryphen  Apostelgeschichten ,  ii.  2,  109  —  141, 
and  Supplement,  p.  76. 

1 1 .  THE  LEGEND  OF  THADD^US.  The  famous  Thaddaeus-Legend 
is  deserving  of  mention,  though  its  hero,  Thaddaeus  or  Addaeus,  was 
originally  held  to  be  one  of  the  70  or  72  disciples  (Luke  x.  i)  and 
only  at  a  later  date  was  confounded  with  the  Apostle  (Judas)  Thad 
daeus.  The  earliest  form  of  the  Legend  appears  in  Eusebius  l,  who 
avers  that  he  found  it  in  the  archives  of  Edessa2.  Some  of  the  do 
cuments  in  these  archives  he  copied  word  for  word,  and  translated 
from  Syriac  into  Greek3.  They  were  the  correspondence  between 
Abgar,  toparch  of  Edessa,  and  Jesus,  together  with  an  account  of 
the  mission  of  Thaddaeus  to  Edessa.  In  his  Letter  to  Jesus,  Abgar 
(Abgar  V.  Ukkama,  or  «the  Black»  ca.  13 — 50)  begs  the  Lord  to 
visit  him  in  Edessa  and  cure  his  illness.  But  the  Lord  refuses,  since 
He  must  accomplish  His  work  in  Palestine  and  ascend  thence  to 
Heaven.  After  that  event,  however,  He  will  send  one  of  His  disciples 
who  will  free  Abgar  from  his  illness. 

The  narrative  goes  on  to  relate  that,  after  the  Ascension  of  the 
Lord,  «Judas  who  was  also  called  Thomas»,  sent  Thaddaeus,  one  of 
the  seventy,  to  Edessa.  Thaddaeus  cured  the  king  and  many  other 
sick  persons,  and  began  to  preach  the  Gospel  to  the  people  of 
Edessa.  In  1876  a  lengthy  Syriac  narrative  was  given  to  the  public  in 
which  there  was  question  of  the  conversion  of  Edessa  to  the  Christian 
faith.  It  claims  to  have  been  composed  by  a  certain  Labubna  and 
is  entitled  « Doctrine  of  the  Apostle  Addaeus».  Almost  contempor 
aneously  an  Armenian  version  of  the  Syriac  original  was  published.  In 
this  work  the  documents  cited  by  Eusebius  re-appear  in  almost  verbal 
agreement,  the  only  difference  being  some  minor  additions.  According 
to  the  newly  discovered  work  the  answer  of  the  Lord  to  Abgar  was  not 
given  in  writing,  but  orally.  Moreover,  before  mentioning  the  mission 
to  Edessa  of  Addaeus,  one  of  the  Seventy- Two,  this  work  interpolates 
a  short  account  of  the  portrait  of  Christ  said  to  have  been  painted 

1  Hist  eccl.,  i.    13.  2  Ib.,   i.    13,   5;   cf.  ii.    i,   6.  8. 

3  Ib.,  i.   13,   5   22. 


by  Ananias,  the  messenger  of  Abgar.  Finally,  there  is  added  a 
lengthy  narrative  of  the  missionary  preaching  of  Addaeus  in  Edessa. 
The  short  Greek  Acts  of  Thaddaeus,  certainly  not  written  before 
the  fifth  century,  insert  Thaddseus  or  Lebbaeus  (one  of  the  Twelve), 
instead  of  Thaddseus  or  Addaeus  (one  of  the  Seventy  or  Seventy- 
Two).  It  is  not  true,  as  Zahn  (1881)  contended,  that  the  Doctrina 
Addaei  represents  the  complete  text  of  the  Acta  Edessena  quoted 
by  Eusebius.  It  is  rather  a  later  enlargement  and  improvement  of 
that  legend.  According  to  Tixeront  (1888),  in  its  present  form  it 
cannot  be  earlier  than  390 — 430.  At  the  same  time,  it  is  not  pos 
sible  to  fix  more  exactly  the  date  of  the  Acta  Edessena.  Lipsius 
believes  that  the  legend  of  the  correspondence  between  Abgar  and 
Jesus  arose  about  the  time  of  the  first  known  Christian  king  of  Edessa, 
Abgar  VIII.  (Bar  Manu),  ca.  176 — 213.  There  is  no  doubt  of  the 
non-authenticity  of  the  correspondence.  A  sufficient  refutation  of  its 
claims  is  the  statement  of  St.  Augustine  that  genuine  Letters  of 
Christ  would  have  surely  been  most  highly  esteemed  from  the  be 
ginning  in  the  Church  of  Christ l.  It  was  the  contrary  that  happened, 
for  this  very  correspondence  was  declared  apocryphal  in  the  so-called 
Gelasian  Decretal  De  recip.  et  non  recip.  libris 2. 

W.  Cureton  published  extensive  fragments  of  the  Syriac  Doctrina  Addaei, 
in  Ancient  Syriac  Documents,  London,  1864,  pp.  5  (6) — 23.  Later  G.  Phil 
lips  edited  the  complete  text :  The  Doctrine  of  Addai  the  Apostle,  London, 
1876.  Editions  of  the  Armenian  version  appeared,  1868,  at  Venice  and  at 
Jerusalem.  For  the  Armenian  version  cf.  A.  Carriere,  La  legende  d'Abgar 
dans  Fhistoire  d' Armenia  de  Mo'ise  de  Khoren,  Paris,  1895.  For  the  Greek 
ActaThaddaei  cf.  Tischendorf,  Acta  apost.  apocr.,  pp.  261 — 265,  and  Lipsius, 
Acta  apost.  apocr.,  edd.  Lipsius  and  Bonnet,  i,  273 — 278;  Acta  Thaddaei,  in 
Giornale  Arcadico  iv.  (1901),  vol.  vii,  55 — 63.  R.  A.  Lipsius,  Die  edesse- 
nische  Abgarsage  kritisch  untersucht,  Braunschweig,  1880.  Id.,  Die  apo- 
kryphen  Apostelgeschichten,  ii.  2,  178 — 200;  Supplement,  pp.  105 — 108. 
Th.  Zahn,  Forschungen  zur  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons,  Erlangen, 
1881,  i.  350 — 382.  W.  A.  Wright,  Abgar,  in  Diet,  of  Christian  Biogr., 
London,  1877,  i.  5 — 7.  K.  C.  A.  Matthes,  Die  edessenische  Abgarsage  auf 
ihre  Fortbildung  untersucht  (Dissert,  inaug ),  Leipzig,  1882.  L.J.  Tixeront, 
Les  origines  de  1'eglise  d'fidesse  et  la  legende  d'Abgar,  Paris,  1888. 
A.  Buffa,  La  legende  d'Abgar  et  les  origines  de  1'eglise  d'Edesse  (These), 
Geneva,  1893.  J.  Nirschl,  Der  Briefvvechsel  des  Konigs  Abgar  von  Edessa 
mit  Jesus  in  Jerusalem  oder  die  Abgarfrage  ,  in  Katholik  (1896),  ii.  17  if. 
97  ff.  193  ff.  322  ff.  398  ff.  E.  v.  Dobschntz,  Christusbilder,  Leipzig,  1899 
(Texte  und  Untersuchungen,  xviii,  new  series,  iii),  pp.  102  ff.  158  ff.  29  ff. 
Id.,  in  Zeitschr.  ftir  wissenschaftl.  Theol.  (1900),  xliii.  422 — 486. 

§  31.     Apocryphal  Letters  of  the  Apostles. 

I.  THE  LETTER  TO  THE  LAODICEANS.  The  reference  of  St.  Paul 
(Col.  iv.  1 6)  to  an  epistle  written  by  him  to  the  Laodiceans  has 

1  Contra  Faust.  Man.  xviii,  4;   cf.  De  cons,  evang.,  i.   7,    ii  ff. 

2  Epistola  Jesu  ad  Abgarum  regem  apocrypha,  Epistola  Abgari  ad  Jesum  apocrypha. 

§    31.       APOCRYPHAL    LETTERS    OF    THE    APOSTLES.  Ill 

been  variously  interpreted  in  the  past.  It  furnished  the  occasion  for 
the  forgery  of  a  so-called  Epistle  of  St.  Paul,  Ad  Laodicenses,  which 
from  the  sixth  to  the  fifteenth  century  found  welcome  in  many  Latin 
biblical  manuscripts.  The  Latin  text  exhibits  a  very  inelegant  and 
obscure  diction  and  seems  to  be  a  translation  from  the  Greek,  although 
all  the  other  texts  of  the  Epistle  discovered  up  to  the  present  are 
derived  from  the  Latin.  This  curious  little  Letter  is  entirely  com 
posed  of  words  and  phrases  excerpted  from  the  genuine  Epistles  of 
St.  Paul,  and  impresses  the  reader  as  a  very  childish  and  harmless 
composition,  without  the  slightest  trace  of  heretical  doctrine.  The 
first  certain  mention  of  it  is  in  a  quotation  from  a  work  falsely 
attributed  to  St.  Augustine,  composed,  however,  very  probably,  in 
the  fifth  century J.  Possibly  it  is  the  same  as  the  Epistola  ad  Laodi 
censes  mentioned  by  St.  Jerome 2,  in  which  case  our  Epistle  would 
date  from  the  fourth  century  at  least.  An  Epistola  ad  Laudicenses, 
mentioned  in  the  Muratorian  Fragment  as  a  forgery  in  the  interest  of 
Marcion,  was  probably  the  canonical  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  revised  by 
Marcion  for  the  purpose  of  his  teaching,  and  entitled  Ad  Laodicenos 3. 

Cf.  R.  Anger ,  Uber  den  Laodicenerbrief  (Beitrage  zur  hist.-krit.  Ein- 
leitung  in  das  Alte  und  Neue  Testament,  i),  Leipzig,  1843.  J.  B.  Light- 
foot,  St.  Paul's  Epistles  to  the  Colossians  and  to  Philemon,  2.  ed.,  London, 
1876,  pp.  281  —  300.  Th.  Zahn,  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons  (1892), 
ii.  2,  566 — 585.  Anger,  Lightfoot  and  Zahn  exhibit  also  new  recensions  of 
the  text.  Anger  makes  known  (pp.  166  if.)  two  Old-German  and  two  Old- 
English  versions,  also  one  Old-Bohemian  version,  and  a  re-translation  from 
the  Latin  into  the  Greek.  Lightfoot  gives  two  Old-English  translations  into 
Greek.  Carra  de  Vaux  published  an  Arabic  translation,  in  the  Revue 
Biblique  (1896),  v.  221 — 226. 

2.  THE  LETTER  TO  THE  ALEXANDRINES.  In  the  Muratorian  Fragment 
the  title  of  the  last  mentioned  document  is  followed  by  that  of  a  pseudo- 
Pauline  and  Marcionite  Epistle  Ad  Alexandrines.    We  have  no  other 
knowledge  of  this  Letter  which  some  have  erroneously  supposed  to  be  the 
canonical  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  A  lesson  of  the  seventh-century  Sacra- 
mentarium  et  Lectionarium  Bobbiense,  entitled  Epistola  Pauli  apostoli 
ad  Colos.,  would  be,  in  the  opinion  of  Zahn,  a  fragment  of  the  Epistola 
ad  Alexandrines.  But  his  hypothesis  is  over-bold,  and  very  questionable. 

Zahn,    Gesch.  des   neutestamentl.  Kanons,    ii.   2,   586 — 592.     Harnack, 
Gesch.  der  altchristl.  Literatur,  i.  33. 

In  the  Syriac  biblical  manuscripts  of  the  fourth  century  the  two  canonical 
Epistles  of  Paul  to  the  Corinthians  were  followed  by  a  third.    A  letter 
of  the  presbyters  of  Corinth  to  Paul  served  as  an  introduction  to  this 
latter  Epistle.     In  his  commentary  on  the  Pauline  Epistles  Ephraem 

1  Liber  de  divinis  scripturis   (ed.  Weihrich,  p.   516). 

-  De  viris  illustr.,   c.   5.  3   Tert.,  Adv.  Marc.,  v.    ii,    17. 

112  FIRST    PERIOD.       THIRD    SECTION. 

Syrus  treats  this  third  Epistle,  with  its  introductory  note,  as  quite  equal 
in  authority  to  the  genuine  ones.  In  the  fifth  century  it  was  translated 
from  Syriac  into  Armenian  and  into  Latin,  and  for  centuries  held  its 
place  in  the  biblical  manuscripts  of  the  Armenian  Church.  One  Armenian 
and  two  Latin  versions  are  extant;  the  Syriac  text  has  not  yet  been 
discovered.  Zahn  and  Vetter  conjectured  that  the  Syrian  text  must 
have  been  a  translation  or  a  recension  of  a  Greek  text  that  was  itself 
only  a  part  of  the  apocryphal  Acta  Pauli ;  their  conjecture  was  destined 
to  be  borne  out  by  the  discovery  mentioned  in  §  30,  3.  The  contents 
of  the  correspondence  are  as  follows :  Stephen  and  his  co-presbyters 
at  Corinth  make  known  to  Paul  that  two  men,  Simon  and  Cleobius, 
had  been  preaching  at  Corinth  false  doctrines;  they  denied  the  divine 
creation  of  the  world  and  of  man,  the  divine  mission  of  the  prophets, 
the  virginal  birth  of  Jesus,  and  the  resurrection  of  the  body.  Their 
deceitful  and  perilous  discourses  had  shaken  severely  the  faith  of 
some  Christians.  In  the  Armenian  text  (but  not  in  the  Latin)  there 
is  here  inserted  a  document  by  which  it  appears  that  Paul  was  a 
prisoner  at  Philippi  when  he  received  the  letter  of  the  Corinthians, 
and  that  he  was  greatly  troubled  thereby.  In  his  reply  he  insists 
again  and  urgently  on  the  doctrine  which  he  had  always  preached  to 
the  Corinthians,  more  particularly  on  that  of  the  resurrection  of  the 
body.  The  idea  of  such  a  correspondence  seems  to  have  been 
suggested  by  I  Cor.  vii.  I  and  v.  9. 

On  the  subject  of  this  correspondence  there  are  two  exhaustive  mono 
graphs:  W.  Fr.  Rinck,  Das  Sendschreiben  der  Korinther  an  den  Apostel 
Paulus  und  das  dritte  Sendschreiben  Pauli  an  die  Korinther,  Heidelberg, 
1823,  and  P.  Vetter,  Der  apokryphe  dritte  Korintherbrief,  Vienna,  1894. 
Rinck  made  a  German  translation  of  the  Letters  from  eight  Armenian 
manuscripts,  and  pursued  at  great  length  the  history  of  their  diffusion  and 
of  their  use,  in  the  strange  hope  of  proving  them  to  be  genuine.  Vetter 
gives  a  literary-historical  introduction  to  the  problem  and  presents  a  new 
edition  of  all  hitherto  known  texts ;  he  also  makes  some  additions  to  them. 
The  Armenian  text  (with  a  German  version,  in  Vetter)  pp.  39 — 57)  was  first 
published  in  1715  by  D.  Wilkins.  Of  the  two  Latin  translations  one 
(Vetter,  pp.  58 — 64)  was  edited  by  S.  Berger  (1891),  and  the  other  Better, 
pp.  64 — 69)  by  E.  Bratke  (1892).  Vetter  gives  (pp.  70 — 79)  a  German 
version  of  the  Commentary  of  Ephraem  Syrus  (in  Old- Armenian)  on  these 
Epistles;  the  original  Syriac  has  been  lost.  Cf.  Zahn,  Gesch.  des  neutesta- 
mentl.  Kanons,  ii.  2,  592 — 611,  1016 — 1019;  Vetter,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr. 
(1895),  Ixxvii.  622 — 633;  A.  Berendts,  in  Abhandlungen  Al.  von  Ottingen 
gewidmet,  Miinchen,  1898,  pp.  i — 28. 

is  extant  in  Latin  a  Correspondence  between  Paul  and  Seneca,  made 
up  of  eight  short  Letters  of  the  Roman  philosopher  L.  Annaeus  Seneca 
(f  65)  and  six,  mostly  still  shorter,  replies  of  the  Apostle.  They 
are  remarkable  for  poverty  of  thought  and  content,  rude  diction  and 
unpolished  style.  Seneca  admires  (Ep.  i.  7)  the  Epistles  of  Paul,  but 


is  offended  at  the  antithesis  between  their  noble  contents  and  the 
wretched  style  (Ep.  7) ;  he  advises  him  to  pay  more  attention  to 
expression  and  to  acquire  a  better  Latin  diction  (Ep.  13;  cf.  Ep.  9). 
This  correspondence  is  first  mentioned  by  Jerome 1  and  probably 
was  not  extant  before  the  fourth  century.  There  is  no  foundation 
for  the  hypothesis  that  the  correspondence  mentioned  by  Jerome  has 
disappeared,  while  the  extant  Letters  are  mediaeval  fiction ;  the  Latin 
text  is  original,  not  a  translation.  It  is  possible  that  the  author 
desired  to  popularize  among  the  higher  classes  of  Roman  nobility  a 
broader  view  of  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul.  The  legend  of  Seneca's 
conversion  to  Christianity,  on  which  this  correspondence  is  based, 
owes  its  origin  to  the  ethico-theistic  character  of  the  Stoic  philosopher's 

This  correspondence  is  found  in  many  editions  of  the  works  of  Seneca, 
notably  in  the  stereotyped  edition  of  his  prose-writings  by  Fr.  Haase, 
Leipzig,  1852 — 1853;  1893 — 1895,  iii.  476 — 481 ;  L.  A.  Senecae  opera  quae 
supersunt.  Supplementum,  ed.  Fr.  Haase,  Leipzig,  1902.  Separate  editions 
of  the  correspondence  were  brought  out  by  Fr.  X.  Kraus ,  in  Theol. 
Quartalschr.  (1867),  xlix.  603—624,  and  E.  Westerburg,  Der  Ursprung  der 
Sage,  daft  Seneca  Christ  gewesen  sei,  Berlin,  1881,  pp.  37 — 50.  For  a 
criticism  and  commentary  on  the  Letters  cf.  J.  Kreyher,  L.  Annaus  Seneca, 
Berlin,  1887,  pp.  170 — 184;  Zahn,  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons,  ii.  2, 
612 — 621.  On  the  relations  of  Seneca  to  Christianity  cf.  IV.  Ribbeck,  L.  Annaus 
Seneca,  der  Philosoph,  Hannover,  1887;  Light  foot,  Epistle  to  the  Philippians, 
London,  1890:  St.  Paul  and  Seneca,  pp.  271 — 333;  J.  R.  Mozley,  in  Diet, 
of  Chr.  Biogr.,  London,  1887,  Seneca,  p.  610.  M.  Baumgarten ,  Lucius 
Annaus  Seneca,  Rostock,  1895  ;  L.  Friedlander,  Der  Philosoph  Seneca,  in 
Histor.  Zeitschr.  (1900),  Ixxxv.  193 — 249. 

§  32.     Apocryphal  Apocalypses. 

i.  THE  APOCALYPSE  OF  PETER.  The  eighth  century-manuscript 
to  which  we  owe  the  fragment  of  the  Gospel  of  Peter  (§  29,  5)  has 
preserved  also  a  long  fragment  of  the  Apocalypse  of  Peter.  It 
begins  in  the  middle  of  a  speech  of  the  Lord  and  relates  at  length 
a  number  of  visions.  Two  departed  brothers,  clothed  in  celestial 
glory,  appear  upon  a  mountain  to  the  Twelve  Apostles.  The  narrator, 
one  of  the  Apostles,  who  speaks  of  himself  in  the  first  person,  is 
permitted  to  behold  a  glimpse  of  heaven,  «a  very  great  space 
outside  this  world ».  Directly  opposite  heaven,  but  hidden  from 
the  gaze  of  the  narrator,  is  the  place  of  punishment  for  sinners; 
the  description  of  the  tortures  endured  there,  depicted  in  glowing 
colours,  takes  up  the  remainder  of  the  narrative.  Although  the  narrator 
does  not  name  himself,  it  is  clear  from  intrinsic  evidence  that  he  wishes 
to  be  recognized  as  the  prince  of  the  Apostles.  The  identification  of 
the  work  is  made  through  a  quotation  from  it  in  Clement  of  Alexandria. 
He  introduces  part  of  a  passage  (verse  26)  with  the  words:  nirpoQ 

1  De  viris  illustr.,  c.    12. 

114  FIRST    PERIOD.       THIRD    SECTION. 

iv  rrt  d7iOxaA6</>£i  (pycri1.  In  many  places  during  the  earlier  centuries, 
even  in  ecclesiastical  circles,  this  work  enjoyed  great  popularity. 
Not  only  is  it  often  quoted  by  Clement  of  Alexandria,  but  in  his 
Hypotyposes  he  judged  it  worthy  of  a  commentary  2.  In  the  Muratorian 
Fragment  (according  to  the  traditional  and  well-founded  exposition 
of  the  text)  this  Apocalypse  is  held  to  be  canonical,  although  it  is 
admitted  that  some  Christians  do  not  share  that  opinion  (quam  quidam  ex 
nostris  legi  in  ecclesia  nolunt).  Though  Eusebius  3  and  Jerome4  rejected 
it  as  non-canonical,  it  continued  to  be  read  on  Good  Friday  in  some 
of  the  churches  of  Palestine  as  late  as  the  middle  of  the  fifth 
century 5.  It  was  probably  composed  in  the  first  half  of  the  second 
century;  the  place  of  its  origin  cannot  be  determined.  It  has  some 
points  of  contact  with  the  Second  Epistle  of  Peter ;  hence  it  is  sup 
posed  that  pseudo-Peter  had  it  before  him,  and  that  he  drew  from 
it  the  impulse  to  pose  in  the  person  of  the  prince  of  the  Apostles. 
Antique-heathen  ideas  of  Hades  are  traceable  in  its  descriptions  of 
the  pains  of  hell,  particularly  Orphic -Pythagorean  traditions.  But 
their  presence  in  the  author's  mind  is  probably  explained  by  the  use 
of  Judaistic  literary  sources,  and  not  of  heathen  works. 

This  fragment  was  published  in  1892.  The  most  important  editions, 
translations,  and  recensions  of  it  are  quoted  in  §  29,  5.  Cf.  besides 
A.  Dieterich,  Nekyia,  Beitrage  zur  Erklarung  der  neuentdeckten  Petrus- 
apokalypse,  Leipzig,  1893;  Harnack ,  in  Texte  und  Untersuchungen,  etc. 
(1895),  xiii.  i,  71  —  73.  As  far  as  we  can  now  judge,  there  is  no  relation 
between  this  ancient  Greek  apocalypse  and  the  Apocalypsis  Petri  per 
Clementem  (containing  explanations  alleged  to  have  been  given  by  St.  Peter 
to  St.  Clement  of  Rome  about  revelations  alleged  to  have  been  made  by 
Christ  to  Peter  himself),  preserved  in  Arabic  and  Ethiopic  manuscripts,  a 
miscellaneous  collection  scarcely  older  than  the  eighth  century ;  cf.  E.  Bratke, 
in  Zeitschr.  fur  wissenschaftl.  Theol.  (1893),  i.  454 — 493.  There  is  an 
English  translation  of  the  latter  by  Andrew  Rutherford,  in  Ante-Nicene 
Fathers  (Am.  ed.  1885),  ix.  145 — 147. 

2.  THE  APOCALYPSE  OF  PAUL.  In  contents  the  Apocalypse  of  Paul 
is  close  a  kin  to  the  Apocalypse  of  Peter.  On  the  other  hand,  it  has 
reached  us  complete,  not  only  in  the  original  Greek,  but  in  a  series  of 
translations  and  recensions.  There  exists,  however,  no  reliable  edition 
of  this  work,  and  there  is  yet  uncertainty  as  to  the  mutual  relations 
of  the  texts  that  have  reached  us.  Very  probably  it  will  be  found 
that  the  Latin  translation,  first  published  by  James  in  1893,  is  a  much 
truer  witness  to  the  original  than  the  Greek  text  published  in  1866 
by  Tischendorf.  Important  service  is  rendered  to  the  critical  study 
of  the  Greek  text  by  an  ancient  Syriac  version.  In  this  Apocalypse 
we  are  introduced  to  the  mysteries  that  Paul  beheld  when  he  ascended 
to  the  third  Heaven,  «and  was  caught  up  into  Paradise  and  heard 

1  Eclog.  proph.,   c.  41.          2  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.  14,    i.          3  Ib.,  iii.  3,  2;    25,  4. 
4  De  viris  illustr.,   c.    i.  5  Sozom.,  Hist,  eccl.,   vii.    19. 

§    32.      APOCRYPHAL    APOCALYPSES.  115 

secret  words  which  it  is  not  granted  to  man  to  utter »  (2  Cor.  xii.  2  ff.). 
It  pretends  to  be  the  work  of  Paul,  but  not  to  be  destined  for  the 
general  public.  It  opens  with  a  brief  statement  to  the  effect  that 
in  the  days  of  Theodosius,  and  by  the  direction  of  an  angel,  the 
work  had  been  discovered  beneath  the  house  in  which  Paul  lived 
while  at  Tarsus.  Through  the  Prefect  of  the  city  this  book  was 
delivered  to  the  emperor,  and  by  him  either  the  original  or  a  copy 
was  sent  to  Jerusalem.  In  the  company  of  an  angel,  Paul  leaves 
this  world,  beholds  on  his  way  the  departure  of  the  souls  of  the 
just  and  the  sinful,  and  arrives  at  the  place  of  the  just  souls,  in  the 
shining  land  of  promise,  on  the  shore  of  the  Acherusian  Lake,  out 
of  which  the  City  of  God  arises.  Thence  he  is  led  to  the  place  of 
the  godless  and  beholds  the  manifold  sufferings  of  the  damned. 
Finally  he  is  allowed  to  visit  Paradise,  where  Adam  and  Eve  had 
committed  the  first  sin.  The  narrative  exhibits  a  fertile  imagination, 
and  considerable  power  of  invention.  It  cannot  be  shown  that  it  is 
in  any  way  dependent  on  the  Apocalypse  of  Peter.  The  work  itself 
suggests  that  it  was  composed  in  or  about  the  time  of  Theodosius 
(379 — 395)>  and  in  or  near  Jerusalem.  Traces  of  it  first  appear  in  the 
Tractates  or  Homilies  of  St.  Augustine  on  the  Gospel  of  John  (98,  8) 
delivered  about  416,  and  in  the  Church  History  of  Sozomen  (vii.  19) 
written  about  440.  St.  Augustine  judges  with  severity  the  deception 
practised  by  the  writer,  but  Sozomen  is  witness  that  in  other  circles, 
especially  among  the  monks,  the  work  met  with  approval.  During 
the  Middle  Ages  its  popularity  was  great,  as  is  seen  from  the  many 
versions  preserved:  Latin,  German,  French,  and  English. 

The  Greek,  or  rather  a  Greek  text  was  published  by  C.  Tischendorf, 
in  Apocalypses  apocryphae,  Leipzig,  1866,  pp.  34 — 69  (cf.  pp.  xiv — xvm). 
He  used  two  late  manuscripts,  one  of  which  was  a  copy  of  the  other.  The 
ancient  Latin  version  was  edited  from  an  eighth-century  manuscript,  by 
James,  Apocrypha  anecdota,  Cambridge,  1893,  pp.  i — 42.  The  ancient 
Syriac  versions  have  reached  us  only  in  translation  of  the  same.  An  English 
translation  was  printed  by  J.  Perkins,  in  Journal  of  the  American  Oriental 
Society  (1866),  viii.  183 — 212.  Cf.  Andrew  Rutherford,  in  Ante-Nicene 
Fathers  (Am.  ed.  1885),  ix.  151—166.  From  another  manuscript  P.  Zingerle 
published  a  German  translation,  in  Vierteljahrsschrift  fiir  deutsch-  und  englisch- 
theologische  Forschung  und  Kritik  (1871),  iv.  139 — 183.  For  later  Latin  and 
German  recensions  cf.  H.  Brandes,  Visio  S.  Pauli,  ein  Beitrag  zur  Visions- 
literatur,  mit  einem  deutschen  und  zwei  lateinischen  Texten,  Halle,  1885. 
He  has  also  treated  of  French  and  English  translations,  in  Englische  Studien 
(1884),  vii.  34 — 65.  For  Slavonic  texts,  manuscripts  and  printed  works  cf. 
Bonwetsch ,  in  Harnack ,  Gesch.  der  altchristl.  Literatur,  i.  910  f.  -  -  The 
Apocalypse  of  Paul  is  to  be  carefully  distinguished  from  the  'AvafiaTix&v 
HauXou,  or  Ascension  of  Paul,  a  second-  or  third-century  work  mentioned 
only  by  Epiphanius  (Haer.,  38,  2).  Like  the  former  it  claims  to  contain  the 
unspeakable  words  of  2  Cor.  xii.  2  if.  But  it  was  replete  with  abominable 
things  (dppTjToopfCac  IjinXecov)  and  was  used  exclusively  by  Cainites  and 
« Gnostics ».  The  so-called  Decretum  Gelasii  de  recip.  et  non  recip.  libris 
mentions  in  connection  with  this  Apocalypse  two  others  of  which  we  know 



nothing  more:  Revelatio  quae  appellatur  Thomae  apocrypha;  Revelatio  quae 
appellatur  Stephani  apocrypha  (Thiel  ,  Epist.  Rom.  Pont.,  Brunsberg,  1868, 
i.  465).  The  so-called  Catalogue  of  the  Sixty  Canonical  Books  mentions 
Zor/aptoo  a~oxak>^.  The  so-called  Stichometria  of  St.  Nicephorus  also  makes 
mention  of  an  apocryphal  work  Za/apiou  Tratpoc  'Icoavvou.  Berendts  is  of 
opinion  that  in  both  places  there  is  question  of  a  work  on  the  father  of 
John  the  Baptist,  written  in  Palestine  in  the  third  or  fourth  century,  for 
the  purpose  of  explaining  the  words  of  our  Lord  concerning  the  blood 
of  Zachary,  the  son  of  Barachias  (Mt.  xxiii.  35;  cf.  Luke  xi.  51).  Cf. 
A.  Berendts,  Studien  iiber  Zacharias-Apokryphen  und  Zacharias-Legenden, 
Leipzig,  1895.  Under  the  first  of  these  titles  we  may  probably  recognize 
a  spurious  Apocalypse  current  under  the  name  of  the  prophet  Zachary. 
P.  Macler  ,  L'  Apocalypse  arabe  de  Daniel,  publiee,  traduite  et  annotee, 
Paris,  1004. 




§  33.     Anti-Gnostics.     Their  lost  works. 

1.  PRELIMINARY  REMARKS.    Against  the  heresies  indicated  in  the 
preceding  pages,  the  representatives  of  the  Church  undertook  to  de 
monstrate  that  she  alone  was  in  exclusive  possession  of  the  truth  and 
that  only  her  teachings  were  justifiable.    The  doctrines  most  directly 
threatened  or  imperilled  were  naturally  those  defended  with  the  greatest 
warmth  ;  thus  in  the  conflict  with  Gnosticism  the  belief  in  the  unity  of 
God  because  at  once  the  most  important  of  the  ecclesiastical  doctrines. 
At  the  same  time  the  sources  and  criteria  of  the  teachings  of  the  Church 
were  naturally  a  matter  of  discussion.     The  anti-heretical  was  therefore 
destined  to  greatly  surpass  the  apologetic  literature  as  a  propaedeutic, 
and  a  foundation    for  theology   or   the   science    of  faith.     The   anti- 
Gnostic  writings   of  the   apologists  Justin  Martyr,    Miltiades,    Melito, 
and  Theophilus  of  Antioch  have    been   lost;    indeed,    that   has  been 
the   general    fate  of  the   greater   part  of  the    anti-Gnostic    literature. 

2.  AGRIPPA  CASTOR.     A  writer  of  this  name,  otherwise  unknown 
work  to  us,  wrote  during  the  reign  of  Hadrian  (117  —  138)  a  polemical 
against  Basilides.    Eusebius  makes  mention  of  it  and  praises  it  highly1. 

For  the  «testimonia  antiquorum»    cf.  Routh,    Reliquiae  Sacrae,    2.  ed., 
Oxford,   1846—1848,  i.  83—90  (Migne,  PG.,  v.   1269—1272). 

3.  HEGESIPPUS.     We  possess  more  copious  remains  of  the   «  Me 
morabilia  »   of  Hegesippus.     He  was  an  Oriental,  born  in  Syria  or  in 
Palestine  and  of  Jewish  origin,    according   to  Eusebius2;    at  least  he 
was   acquainted   with   Aramaic.      An    interest    in    the    true    Christian 
teaching  (b  opDoQ  MYOQ)  led  him  to  the  West,  and  as  far  as  Rome, 

1  Hist,  eccl.,  iv.   7,   6  —  8;  Hieron.,  De  viris  illustr.,   c.   21. 

2  Hist,  eccl.,  iv.   22,   8. 

§    33-       ANTI-GNOSTICS.       THEIR    LOST   WORKS.  I  I/ 

where,  from  his  own  words  (though  there  is  a  dispute  as  to  their 
proper  translation),  we  learn  with  certainty  l  that  he  sojourned  under 
Pope  Anicetus  (about  155 — 166)  and  even  survived  the  reign  of  Pope 
Eleutherus  (about  174 — 189).  On  his  return  to  his  native  land  he 
wrote  five  books  that  Eusebius  sometimes  calls  xivre  auffpdfjLOLTa. 
(1.  c.  iv.  8,  2)  and  again  Trsyre  itTtofjLvfjp.aTa  (1.  c.  iv.  22,  I  ;  cf.  ii.  23,  3). 
The  latter  title  is  used  by  Hegesippus  himself  (ii.  23,  8).  Though 
the  fragments  in  Eusebius  are  mostly  historical  in  character,  it  does  not 
seem  possible  to  reconcile  his  excerpts  with  the  judgment  of  Jerome2, 
according  to  wrhich  the  work  of  Hegesippus  resembled  a  history  of 
the  Church.  It  must  have  been  more  like  a  polemical  treatise  against 
Gnosticism,  with  the  purpose  of  setting  forth  the  evidence  of  eccle 
siastical  tradition ,  particularly  its  close  dependency  on  the  uninter 
rupted  episcopal  succession.  Indeed,  Eusebius  places  the  venerable 
Oriental  first  among  the  orthodox  opponents  of  the  new  Gnostic 
heresy,  and  adds  that  he  had  set  up  a  memorial  in  the  simplest 
form  to  the  pure  tradition  of  the  Apostolic  preaching  (frnXouardrfl 
ffuvrdsst  fpcuprfi) 3.  Short  fragments  of  Hegesippus  are  found  also 
in  Philippus  Sidetes  and  Stephen  Gobarus. 

For  the  last  traces  of  the  complete  text  of  the  Memorabilia  cf.  Th.  Zahn, 
Der  griechische  Irenaus  und  der  ganze  Hegesippus  im  16.  und  im  17.  Jahr- 
hundert,  in  Theol.  Literaturblatt,  1893,  pp.  495 — 497;  E.  Bratke,  ib.  1894, 
pp.  65 — 67.  The  fragments  extant  are  found  in  Routh,  1.  c.,  i.  203 — 284; 
Migne,  1.  c.,  v.  1307 — 1328;  A.  Hilgenfeld,  Hegesippus,  in  Zeitschr.  fur 
wissenschaftl.  Theol.  (1876),  xix.  177 — 229;  Th.  Zahn,  Forschungen  zur 
Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons,  etc.  (1900),  vi.  228 — 273.  For  the  hypo 
thesis  of  Lightfoot  that  the  Papal  catalogue  in  Epiphanius  (Haer.-,  27,  6) 
is  taken  from  the  work  of  Hegesippus,  see  Funk,  Kirchengeschichtl.  Ab- 
handlungen  und  Untersuchungen  (1897),  i.  373 — 390;  Zahn,  1.  c.,  pp.  243 
to  246;  y.  Flamion,  in  Revue  d'histoire  ecclesiastique  (1900),  i.  672 — 678-, 
y.  Chapman,  in  Revue  Benedictine  (1901),  xviii.  410 — 417;  (1902),  xix. 
13—30,  144—170  (for  Lightfoot). —  Th.  Jess,  Hegesippos  nach  seiner  kirchen- 
geschichtlichen  Bedeutung,  in  Zeitschr.  fur  die  histor.  Theol.  (1865),  xxxv. 
3—95.  K.  F.  Nosgen,  Der  kirchliche  Standpunkt  Hegesipps,  in  Zeitschr. 
fur  Kirchengesch.  (1877  — 1878),  ii.  193 — 233.  A.  Hilgenfeld,  Hegesippus 
und  die  Apostelgeschichte ,  in  Zeitschr.  fur  wissenschaftl.  Theol.  (1878), 
xxi.  297 — 330.  H.  Dannreuther ,  Du  temoignage  d'Hege'sippe  sur  1'eglise 
chretienne  aux  deux  premiers  siecles,  Nancy,  1878.  H.  S.  Laivlor,  Two 
notes  on  Eusebius,  in  Hermathena  (1900),  xi.  10 — 49. 

4.  RHODON.  During  the  reign  of  Commodus  (180 — 192)  this  writer, 
born  in  Asia  Minor  and  subsequently  a  disciple  of  Tatian  at  Rome, 
developed  an  apparently  manifold  literary  activity.  He  wrote  a  work 
against  the  sect  of  Marcion,  and  a  Commentary  on  the  Hexaemeron 
(etQ  TTjv  k$afjfjL£poy  faofjivyfjiaj,  perhaps  against  Apelles  (§  25,  7)  4.  In 
his  work  against  Marcion,  from  which  Eusebius  has  quoted  interesting 

1  Ib.,  iv.   22,   2—3.  2  De  viris  illustr.,  c.   22. 

3  Hist,  eccl.,  iv.  8,    i — 2.  4  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  v.    13. 


paragraphs,  Rhodon  made  known  his  intention  to  write  a  reply  to  the 
« Problems »  of  Tatian,  under  the  title  7ipo^^p.drco^  ixducreiQ.  Jerome 
has  wrongly  1  attributed  to  him  an  anonymous  work  against  the  Mon- 
tanists  (§  35,  2)  mentioned  in  Eusebius. 

Routh,  1.  c.,  i.  435—446  (Migne,  1.  c.,  v.   1331  —  1338). 

5.  PHILIPPUS   OF    GORTYNA,    MODESTUS,    MUSANUS.      To    the   same 
period   belong   Philippus,    bishop    of  Gortyna   in    Crete,    who    wrote 
against  Marcion  2,  Modestus  who  exposed  the  same  errors  with  special 
skill 3,  and  Musanus  who  addressed  a  very  grave  Letter  to  some  brethren 
who  had  apostatized  to  the  sect  of  the  Encratites  *.     At  a  later  date 
other  writings  circulated  under  the  name  of  Modestus5. 

6.  HERACLITUS  AND  OTHERS.    In  evidence  of  the  industry  of  « eccle 
siastical  men»  at  the  end  of  the  second  century  Eusebius 6  mentions 
«the  work  of  Heraclitus  on  the  Apo^lle  (Paul),  and  that  of  Maximus 
on  the  origin  of  evil  and  the  creation  of  matter,  questions  much  dis 
cussed  by  heretics,    the  work   of  Candidus  on  the  Hexaemeron  and 
that  of  Apion  on   the  same  subject,    also    a  work  of  Sextus  on  the 
resurrection,  and  a  work  of  Arabianus  on  another  subject».    Jerome 
made  some  additions  to  this  passage  of  Eusebius7. 

The  mention  of  Maximus  as  a  Christian  writer  must  be  an  error  \  else 
where  (Praep.  evang.,  vii.  22)  Eusebius  quotes  a  lengthy  passage  from 
the  supposed  work  of  Maximus:  Routh,  1.  c.,  ii.  75 — 121;  Migne,  1.  c.,  v. 
1337 — 1356.  The  whole  paragraph  appears,  word  for  word,  in  the  work 
of  St.  Methodius  of  Olympus  on  free  will :  Bonwetsch ,  Methodius  von 
Olympus,  Schriften,  1891,  i.  15 — 38.  Probably  Eusebius  was  misled  into 
attributing  the  work  of  St.  Methodius  to  an  older,  real  or  imaginary, 
writer  named  Maximus.  Cf.  Th.  Zahn ,  in  Zeitschr.  fiir  Kirchengesch. 
(1887—1888),  ix.  224—229.  y.  A.  Robinson,  The  Philocalia  of  Origen, 
Cambridge,  1893,  pp.  XL — XLIX. 

§  34.     Irenaeus  of  Lyons. 

I.  HIS  LIFE.  Irenseus  was  born  in  Asia  Minor,  about  140,  in 
or  near  Smyrna,  it  is  supposed.  He  was  wont  to  repeat8  that  he 
listened,  as  a  child,  to  the  discourses  of  Poly  carp,  the  aged  bishop 
of  Smyrna.  He  is  said,  on  later  evidence,  to  have  been  at  Rome 
when  Polycarp  died  (Febr.  23.,  155).  He  was  certainly  a  presbyter 
of  the  Church  of  Lyons  during  the  persecution  of  its  members  by 
Marcus  Aurelius.  On  that  occasion  the  clergy  of  Lyons  and  Vienne, 
most  of  whom  were  in  prison,  sent  Irenseus  (177 — 178)  to  Pope  Eleu- 
therus  at  Rome,  with  a  letter  that  treated  of  the  Montanist  troubles, 
and  in  which  they  styled  Irenaeus  «one  who  was  zealous  for  the 

1  De  viris  illustr.,   cc.   37,   39. 

2  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  iv.   25;   cf.  iv.   21,   23,   5.  3  Ib.,   iv.   25;   cf.   21. 
4  Ib.,  iv.   28;   cf.   21.              5  Hieron.,  De  viris  illustr.,   c.   32. 

6  Hist,  eccl.,  v.  27.  7  De  viris  illustr.,   cc.   46 — 51. 

8  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,   v.   20,   5  ;  Iren.,  Adv.  haer.,   iii.   3,   4,   ed.  Massuet. 

§    34-       IRENAEUS    OF    LYONS.  I  IQ 

Testament  of  Christ » 1.  On  his  return  he  was  made  bishop  of  Lyons 
in  succession  to  the  martyred  Pothinus,  and  as  such  devoted  his 
energies  mainly  to  the  overthrow  of  the  false  Gnosis.  During  the 
reign  of  Pope  Victor  I.  (189 — 198/199)  he  took  a  leading  part  in 
the  discussions  that  arose  about  the  Easter  celebration,  « doing 
honour  to  his  name  (Elpyvaws)  and  bearing  himself  as  a  peacemaker 
(slpyvoTtoifaz)* i  says  Eusebius2.  The  date  of  his  death  is  unknown. 
According  to  a  tradition  first  met  with  in  Jerome3  he  suffered 
martyrdom  under  Septimius  Severus  (193 — 211). 

Ch.  E.  Freppel,  St.  Irenee,  Paris,  1861 ;  3.  ed.  1886.  H.  Ziegler,  Irenaus, 
der  Bischof  von  Lyon,  Berlin,  1871.  R,  A.  Lipsius,  Die  Zeit  des  Irenaus 
vonLyon,  in  Histor.  Zeitschr.  (1872),  xxviii.  241 — 295.  A.  Gouilloud,  St. Irenee 
et  son  temps,  Lyon,  1876.  E.  Montet ,  La  legende  d'Irenee  et  1'intro- 
duction  du  christianisme  a  Lyon,  Geneve,  1880.  J?.  A.  Lipsius,  Irenaeus,  in 
Diet,  of  Christ.  Biogr.,  London,  1882,  iii.  253 — 279.  Zahn,  Forschungen 
zur  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons,  etc.  (1891),  iv.  249 — 283;  (1900), 
vi.  27 — 40.  Harnack,  Gesch.  der  altchristl.  Literatur  (1897),  ii.  i,  320 — 333. 

2.  THE  « AD  VERSUS  HAERESES».  The  most  important  legacy  of 
Irenaeus  is  an  extensive  work  against  Gnosticism,  entitled  « Detection 
and  Overthrow  of  the  pretended  but  false  Gnosis »  fs^ey/OQ  xal 
dvarpoKT]  TTJQ  (^eodoj^ofjLO'j  yvajoza)^) ,  usually  known  as  «Adversus 
Haereses» 4.  It  is  unfortunate  that  we  no  longer  possess  the  ori 
ginal  Greek  of  this  work,  which  has  been  handed  down,  however, 
in  a  Latin  translation  that  was  executed  shortly  after  the  composi 
tion  of  the  original,  and  exhibits  a  most  conscientious  fidelity,  even 
a  slavish  literalness.  Fragments  of  the  Greek  text,  notably  the 
greater  part  of  the  first  book,  have  reached  us  through  citations 
from  it  made  by  later  writers,  Hippolytus,  Eusebius,  Epiphanius,  and 
others.  There  are  also  some  short  fragments  preserved  in  a  Syriac 
translation.  According  to  the  introduction  to  the  first  book  the 
work  was  begun  at  the  request  of  a  friend,  probably  a  bishop,  who 
wished  to  know  more  about  the  heresy  of  Valentine,  with  a  view 
to  its  refutation.  In  the  execution  of  his  enterprise  the  plan  seems  to 
have  grown  larger  as  the  author  advanced;  it  is  also  supposed  that 
a  considerable  period  of  time  elapsed  between  the  composition  of 
the  first  book  and  the  completion  of  the  fifth.  We  have  no  means 
of  fixing  more  definitely  the  periods  of  composition  of  the  separate 
books  of  this  work;  in  the  third  book  (iii.  3,  3)  Eleutherus  is  designated 
as  the  contemporary  bishop  of  Rome  (about  174 — 189).  Methodical 
disposition  of  the  material,  consecutiveness  of  thought,  and  pro 
gressive  exposition  are  to  a  great  extent  wanting  in  the  «Adversus 
Haereses».  The  first  book  is  mostly  taken  up  with  the  «detection» 

1  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  v.  4,   2.  2  Ib.,  v.   24,    18. 

3  Comm.  in  Is.  ad  64,  4  ff. 

4  Hieron.,  De  vir.  illustr.,  c.  35,  after  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,   ii.    13,   5;   iii.   28,  6:  Ttpbq 
raq  aipdastg. 


or  exposure  of  the  Gnostic  doctrines;  the  other  four  are  devoted  to 
their  « refutation ».  In  the  second  book  dialectico-philosophical  ar 
guments  predominate,  while  in  the  third  it  is  principally  ecclesiastical 
tradition  and  the  Holy  Scripture  that  the  author  invokes.  The  main 
scope  of  the  work  is  to  disprove  the  Gnostic  thesis  that  the  Creator 
of  the  world  is  another  than  the  Supreme  God ;  this  teaching  is  ex 
pressly  declared  (ii.  i,  i)  to  be  the  blasphemous  foundation  of  all 
Gnosis.  The  fourth  book  rounds  out  the  scriptural  proofs,  confirming 
with  the  sayings  of  the  Lord  (per  Domini  sermones,  iv.  praef.)  the 
previous  teaching  of  the  Apostles  (sententia  apostolorum).  Among 
the  sayings  of  the  Lord  are  understood  also  the  words  of  the  prophets 
(cf.  iv.  2,  3).  The  fifth  book  is  eschatological  in  character.  The 
doctrine  of  the  resurrection  ot  the  body  is  variously  defended,  and 
at  the  end  (cc.  32 — 36)  are  developed  the  Chiliastic  theories  peculiar 
to  Irenaeus.  His  description  of  the  Gnostic  systems  is  based  almost 
entirely  on  his  own  reading  of  their  writings  (§  25,  3).  He  is  also 
well-acquainted  with  such  other  ecclesiastical  writers  as  Ignatius, 
Polycarp,  Papias,  Justin  Martyr,  and  Hegesippus. 

For  the  latest  traces  of  the  Greek  text  of  the  «Adversus  haereses»  cf. 
the  study  of  Zahn  (§  33,  3).  Fr.  Loofs,  Die  Handschriften  der  lateinischen 
Ubersetzung  des  Irenaus  und  ihre  Kapitelteilung,  in  Kirchengesch.  Studien, 
H.  Renter  zum  70.  Geburtstag  gewidmet,  Leipzig,  1888,  pp.  i — 93,  se 
parately  printed,  Leipzig,  1890.  G.  Mercati,  Di  alcuni  miovi  sussidii  per 
la  critica  del  testo  di  S.  Cipriano,  Rome,  1899,  pp.  100 — 107.  Id.,  Note 
di  litterature  biblica  e  cristiana  antica  (Studi  e  Testi,  v.),  Rome,  1901, 
pp.  241 — 243.  The  following  editions  are  based  on  an  independent  study 
of  the  manuscripts:  D.  Erasmus,  Basle,  1526;  Fr.  Feuardent ,  Cologne, 
1596  (reprinted  in  1639);  ?•  E-  Grabe,  Oxford,  1702;  R.  Massuet,  Paris, 
1710  (reprinted  Venice,  1734);  A.  Stieren,  Leipzig,  1848 — 1853;  W.  W. 
Harvey ,  Cambridge,  1857.  It  is  admitted  that  by  far  the  best  edition 
is  that  of  Massuet,  reprinted  in  Migne,  PG.,  vii  (1857).  Some  new  frag 
ments  of  the  Greek  text  were  published  by  A.  Papadopulos-Kerameus ,  in 
'AvaXexra  fepoaoXufMTixrjc  aTa^uoXo-yi'ac,  St.  Petersburg,  1891,  i.  387 — 389;  cf. 
y.  Haussleiter ,  in  Zeitschr.  fur  Kirchengesch.  (1893 — 1894),  xiv.  69 — 73. 
For  the  Syriac  and  Armenian  fragments  see  Harvey  1.  c.,  ii.  431 — 453, 
and  P.  Martin,  in  Pitra ,  Analecta  Sacra,  Paris,  1883,  iv.  17  sq.  292  ft. 
There  is  a  German  translation  by  H.  Hayd,  in  Bibliothek  der  Kirchen- 
vater,  Kempten,  1872 — 1873.  There  is  an  English  translation  of  the 
writings  of  Irenaeus  by  Roberts  and  Rambaut ,  in  Ante-Nicene  Fathers 
(Am.  ed.  1885),  i.  315—578. 

3.  THE  « AD  VERSUS  HAERESES»  CONTINUED.  For  Irenaeus  the 
source  and  standard  of  faith  is  the  self-identical  apostolic  tradition  that 
is  continuous  in  the  Church.  The  unbroken  succession  of  the  bishops, 
the  representatives  of  the  ecclesiastical  magisterium  in  the  churches 
founded  by  the  Apostles,  guarantees  and  proves  the  apostolicity  of 
the  doctrine  taught  in  these  churches;  the  Apostles  appointed  as 
their  successors  only  «very  perfect  and  blameless  men»,  and  these 
in  turn  handed  down  to  their  successors  the  doctrine  of  the  Apostles 

§    34-       IREN.EUS    OF    LYONS.  121 

pure  and  undefiled *.  As  it  would  be  too  tedious  to  enumerate 
in  such  a  work  the  official  succession  of  all  the  churches  (omnium 
ecclesiarum  enumerare  successions),  he  holds  it  sufficient  to  prove 
that  «the  greatest  and  the  oldest  church,  the  one  well-known  to  all 
men,  founded  and  established  at  Rome  by  the  two  most  glorious 
Apostles  Peter  and  Paul»,  can  trace  back  the  list  of  its  bishops  to 
the  days  of  the  Apostles ;  its  teaching  can,  therefore,  rightly  lay  claim 
to  the  character  of  apostolicity :  «Ad  hanc  enim  ecclesiam  propter 
potentiorem  (potiorem)  principalitatem  necesse  est  omnem  convenire 
ecclesiam,  hoc  est  eos  qui  sunt  undique  fideles,  in  qua  semper  ab 
his  qui  sunt  undique  conservata  est  ea  quae  est  ab  apostolis  traditio» 
(III.  3,  2).  These  words  may  be  rightly  translated  as  follows:  «With 
this  church,  because  of  its  higher  rank,  every  church  must  agree, 
i.  e.  the  faithful  of  all  places,  in  which  (in  communion  with  which) 
the  apostolic  tradition  has  been  always  preserved  by  the  (faithful)  of 
all  places «.  Heretics  wrongly  maintained  that  the  Jesus  born  of 
Mary  was  another  than  the  Christ  who  descended  from  Heaven. 
« Otherwise,  Matthew  could  well  have  said  (i.  18):  'The  generation 
of  Jesus  wras  in  this  wise.'  Foreseeing,  however,  the  perverters  of 
faith  and  forestalling  their  deceit,  the  Holy  Spirit  said  through  Matthew 
(Spiritus  Sanctus  per  Matthaeum  ait) :  'the  generation  of  Christ  was 
in  this  wise  (i.  18),  and  they  shall  call  his  name  Emmanuel'  (i.  22  f), 
that  we  might  not  consider  him  a  mere  man,  and  believe  that  he 
was  another  than  the  Christ,  but  rather  know  that  He  is  one  and  the 
same»  (iii.  16,  2).  He  must  be  God  and  Man  in  the  same  person, 
«for  if  it  were  not  a  man  who  had  overcome  the  opponent  of  man 
kind,  the  enemy  would  not  have  been  vanquished  in  the  right  way 
fdcxaiajQj.  And  again,  if  it  were  not  God  who  gave  to  us  our  sal 
vation,  it  would  not  have  been  firmly  assured  to  us  (flsjSatWQ,  iii.  18,  /)». 
«The  Word  of  God  became  man  in  order  that  man,  taking  on  the 
Word  and  receiving  the  Sonship,  might  be  the  Son  of  God»  (iii.  19,  i ; 
the  text  is  somewhat  uncertain).  Irenseus,  like  Justin2,  recognizes  that 
the  Virgin  Mother  also  has  her  place  in  the  work  of  salvation.  «As  Eve, 
the  wife  of  one  man  (Adam),  though  herself  yet  a  virgin,  was  through 
her  disobedience  the  cause  of  death  to  herself  and  the  entire  human 
race,  so  Mary,  the  wife  of  one  man  (foreordained  for  her),  and  yet 
herself  a  virgin,  was  through  her  obedience  the  source  of  salvation 
(causa  salutis)  for  herself  and  the  whole  human  race»  (iii.  22,  4). 
«If  the  former  had  been  disobedient  to  God,  the  latter  was  persuaded 
to  obey  Him,  that  the  Virgin  Mary  might  be  the  advocate  (advocata) 
of  the  Virgin  Eve.  And  as  the  human  race  fell  into  the  slavery  of 
death  through  a  virgin,  so  should  it  be  saved  by  a  virgin ;  the  balance 
is  made  even  \vhen  virginal  obedience  is  weighed  against  virginal 
disobedience  (v.  19,  i). 

1  Adv.  haer.,  iii.  3,    i.  2  Dial.  c.  Tryph.,   c.    100. 


V.  Courdaveaux,  St.  Irenee,  in  Revue  de  1'hist.  des  religions  (1890),  xxi. 
149  —  175.  F.  Cabrol,  La  doctrine  de  St.  Irene'e  et  la  critique  de  M.  Cour 
daveaux,  Paris  and  Lyons,  1891.  J.  Kunze,  Die  Gotteslehre  des  Irenaus 
(Dissert,  inaug.),  Leipzig,  1891.  L.  Duncker,  Des  hi.  Irenaus  Christologie, 
im  Zusammenhange  mit  dessen  theologischen  und  anthropologischen  Grund- 
lehren  dargestellt,  Gottingen,  1843.  G.  Molwitz,  De  dcvaxs^oXawoaewc  in 
Irenaei  theologia  potestate  (Dissert,  inaug.),  Dresden,  1874.  E.  Klebba, 
Die  Anthropologie  des  hi.  Irenaus,  Miinster,  1894  (Kirchengesch.  Studien, 
ii.  3).  H.  Hagemann,  Die  romische  Kirche  ...  in  den  ersten  drei  Jahr- 
hunderten,  Freiburg,  1864,  pp.  598  —  627:  «  Irenaus  iiber  den  Primat  der 
romischen  Kirche.  »  Acta  et  decreta  ss.  concil.  recent.  Collectio  Lacensis, 
Freiburg,  1873,  iv.  v  —  xxxiv:  S.  Irenaei  de  ecclesiae  Romanae  principatu 
testimonium.  Cf.  ^4d.  Harnack,  in  Sitzungsberichte  der  kgl.  preuft.  Akad. 
der  Wissensch.,  Berlin,  1893,  pp.  939  —  955;  J.  Chapman,  in  Revue  Bene 
dictine  (1895),  xii.  49  —  64;  Funk,  in  Kirchengeschichtl.  Abhandlungen  und 
Untersuchungen  (1897),  i.  i  —  23-,  L.  Hopfenmiiller  ,  S.  Irenaeus  de  Eucharistia 
(Dissert,  inaug.),  Bamberg,  1867;  J.  Koerber,  S.  Irenaeus  de  gratia  sancti- 
ficante  (Dissert,  inaug.),  Wiirzburg,  1865  ;  L.  Atzberger,  Gesch.  der  christl. 
Eschatologie  innerhalb  der  vornican.  Zeit,  Freiburg,  1896,  pp.  219  —  263; 
J.  Werner,  Der  Paulinismus  des  Irenaus,  Leipzig,  1889  (Texte  und  Unter 
suchungen,  etc.,  vi.  2);  Gry,  Le  millenarisme  dans  ses  origines  et  son 
developpement,  Paris,  1904. 

4.  OTHER  WRITINGS.  Irenaeus  wrote  many  other  works  that  have 
perished,  with  the  exception  of  a  few  insignificant  fragments.  He 
says  (Adv.  haer.  i.  27,  4;  Hi.  12,  12)  that  he  intended  to  write  a 
special  refutation  of  Marcion;  we  do  not  know  whether  he  carried 
out  his  intention.  To  the  Roman  priest  Florinus,  who  leaned  toward 
the  teachings  of  Valentine,  he  addressed  a  work  on  the  Monarchy  (of 
God),  or  to  the  effect  that  God  is  not  the  author  of  evil  (its  pi  /lovap/taQ 
7]  Kepi  TOO  fj.7)  elvai  rbv  $zbv  7iotY]TT^  xaxojvj.  Later,  when  Florinus 
had  abandoned  the  Church,  Irenaeus  wrote  a  treatise  «On  the 
Ogdoad»  (ntp\  dydoddoQJ,  probably  on  the  Valentinian  cycle  of  yEons. 
Eusebius  quotes  a  passage  from  each  of  these  works  *.  We  gather 
from  a  Syriac  fragment  that  Irenaeus  wrote  to  Pope  Victor  entreating 
him  to  withstand  Florinus  and  to  suppress  his  writings.  Irenaeus 
also  wrote  to  the  same  Pope  apropos  of  the  Paschal  celebration, 
likewise  to  «many  other  heads  of  churches  »  2.  From  one  such  letter 
Eusebius  made  a  lengthy  excerpt  3.  It  was  perhaps  the  same  question 
that  he  treated  in  a  letter  «On  Schism  »  (mpt  a^iffp.aTOQ)  written 
to  Blastus,  a  Roman  Quartodeciman  4.  Eusebius  mentions  5  a  brief 
work  of  Irenaeus  against  the  heathens,  entitled:  xpbc,  "EXtyvaq  XO^OQ 
nep\  inter  f/fjiyc,  eTT^e^oa^syog,  which  Jerome  incorrectly  reads  6  :  Con 
tra  gentes  volumen  breve  et  de  disciplina  aliud.  Eusebius  gives 
also  the  titles  of  some  other  works  :  a  demonstration  of  the  apostolic 
preaching  (elq  eTtidetgw  TOO  dxociTohxoo  vqpUffjLa'Coq),  and  «a  book 
of  miscellaneous  discourses))  (fttftAlov  rt  dta^i^ecov  diaybpwv),  probably 

1  Hist,  eccl.,  v.   20.  2  Ib.,  v.   24,    18.  3  Ib.,  v.  24,    n  ff. 

4  Ib.,  v.   20,    I.  5  Ib.,  v.   26.  c  De  viris  illustr.,   c.   35. 

§    35-       ANTI-MONT ANISTS.  123 

a  collection  of  homilies.  Maximus  Confessor  quotes  *  some  phrases 
from  a  work  of  St.  Irenaeus  on  faith  (nepi  TrlffrsajQ  X6fot).  Little 
credit  is  to  be  given  to  the  inscription  of  a  Syriac  fragment  pur 
porting  to  be  the  work  of  «St.  Irenaeus,  bishop  of  Lyons,  (taken) 
from  his  exposition  of  the  first  (chapter?)  of  the  Canticle  of  Canticles ». 
The  four  Greek  fragments,  known  from  their  editor,  Chr.  M.  PfafT 
(1714),  as  the  Pfaffian  Fragments,  were  until  quite  lately  an  object  of 
erudite  dissension.  Harnack  has  proved  them  to  be  forgeries  of  PfarT. 

The  fragments  of  other  writings  are  found  in  the  already  cited  editions 
of  Adversus  haereses ,  e.  g.  in  Massuet,  Paris,  1710,  pp.  339 — 348;  Migne, 
PG.,  vii.  1225 — 1264;  Stieren ,  i.  821 — 897;  Harvey,  ii.  454 — 511.  Cf. 
Pitra,  Analecta  Sacra,  Paris,  1884,  ii.  194 — 210.  The  Syriac  and  Armenian 
fragments  are  in  Harvey,  ii.  454 — 469,  and  somewhat  increased  in  Martin- 
Pitra,  1.  c. ,  iv.  26  ff.  299  ff. ;  cf.  Preuschen ,  in  Harnack,  Gesch.  der 
altchristl.  Literatur,  i.  266  ff. ;  Harnack,  1.  c.,  ii.  i,  518  ff.  For  the  fragments 
of  the  letter  or  letters  to  Pope  St.  Victor,  see  Zahn,  1.  c.,  iv.  283 — 308. 
The  question  of  the  Pfaffian  Fragments  is  treated  by  Harnack,  in  Texte 
und  Untersuchungen,  xx,  new  series  (1900),  v.  3,  i — 69.  Cf.  P.  Batiffol, 
in  Bulletin  de  litte'rature  ecclesiast.  (1901),  ii.  189 — 200. 

§  35.     Anti-Montanists. 

1.  PRELIMINARY  REMARKS.     The  most  prominent  element  in  the 
controversy  between  the  Montanists  and  the  Catholics  were   the    ec 
static    discourses    of   the    prophets   of  Montanism.     These    ecstasies, 
whether   in  the  shape   of  swoonings   or  _delirium,   were   put  forward 
by  the  Montanists  as  evidence    of  the  purity   and   truth    of  their  re 
velations.     The  Catholics  denounced  them  as  deceitful  signs  of  pseudo- 
prophecy  2.     We   have   already  mentioned    the   anti-Montanist   letters 
of  Apollinaris,    bishop  of  Hierapolis,    and  the  work  of  the  apologist 
Miltiades  (§  19,  i  2).     The  statement  of  the  author  of  Praedestinatus 
(i.   26;  cf.   86)  that  Pope  Soter  (f  ca.  174)  wrote  a  book  against  the 
Montanists,  is  subject  to  caution. 

2.  THE  ANONYMOUS  OF   192/193.    We  have  to  regret  the  loss  of 
a  polemical  work  against  Montanism  from  which  Eusebius  made  se 
veral   excerpts 3.     Its  three  books   included   not   only  a   refutation  of 
the  Montanist  teaching,  but  also  detailed  information  concerning  the 
history  of  the  Montanist  prophets.     From  internal  data  it  must  have 
been  published  not  later  than  the  early  part  of  193.    The  author  was 
a  priest  of  Asia  Minor;  his  name  is  not  given  by  Eusebius.   Jerome  4  has 
too  hastily  identified  him  with  the  anti-Gnostic  Rhodon  (§  33,  4). 

The  Eusebian  fragments  of  the  « Anonymous »  are  in  Routh,  Reliquiae 
Sacrae  (2.  ed.),  ii.  181 — 217;  also  in  Migne,  PG.,  x.  145 — 156.  Cf.  G.  N. 
Bonwetsch,  Die  Geschichte  des  Montanismus,  Erlangen,  1881,  pp.  27 — 29; 
Th.  Zahn,  Forschungen  zur  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons,  etc.  (1893), 
v.  13—21. 

1  Migne,  PG.,  xci.  276.  -   Tertull.,  Adv.   Marc.,  iv.   22. 

8  Hist,  eccl.,  v.    16   17.  4  De  viris  illustr.,   cc.   37.  39. 


3.  APOLLONIUS.     The   anti-Montanist   work   of  the   « ecclesiastical 
writer »  Apollonius  was  another  important  historical  authority  used  by 
Eusebius   in    his    description    of   the   Phrygian    heresy t.     This   work 
of  Apollonius  was  very   probably  written  in   197,    and  contained  ab 
undant   historical    material.      Apollonius   was    also    a   native   of  Asia 
Minor,   and    is    said   in  Praedestinatus    (i.   26    27    86)    to   have   been 
bishop  of  Ephesus. 

The  Eusebian  fragments  are  collected  in  Rottth ,  1.  c.,  i.  463 — 485; 
Mignc ,  1.  c.,  v.  1381 — 1386.  Cf.  Bonwetsch ,  1.  c.,  29  ff. ;  Zahn,  1.  c.,  v. 


4.  CAIUS.     In  the  reign  of  Pope  Zephyrin  (199 — 217)  the  Roman 
Caius,    an    « ecclesiastical »    and    «very    learned »    man2    published    a 
polemical  dialogue  against  the  Montanist  Proclus.     Eusebius  gathered 
a  few  phrases  from  it  for  his  history3.    In  1888,  J.  Gwynn  published, 
with  a  commentary,  some  new  fragments  of  this  dialogue  taken  from 
the   «Capitula»   of  St.  Hippolytus  against  Caius.    In  this  work  Hippo- 
lytus   defended   the  Apocalypse    of  St.  John  against  Caius  who    had 
declared     in    his  dialogue   that   it  was  the  work  of  Cerinthus.     The 
information  concerning  Caius  found  in  Photius4,  when  not  based  on 
Eusebius,    is  untrustworthy;    he  confounds  Caius  with  Hippolytus  or 
rather  with  the  author  of  the   »Philosophoumena». 

The  Caius  fragments  are  collected  in  Routh,  1.  c.,  ii.  123 — 158;  Migne, 
1.  c.,  x.  25 — 36.  For  the  fragments  of  the  «Capitula»  of  Hippolytus  against 
Caius  cf.  §  54,  3.  For  Cains  consult  especially  Zahn,  Gesch.  des  neu- 
testamentl.  Kanons,  etc.,  ii.  985 — 991.  G.  Salmon,  in  Diet,  of  Christian 
Biogr.,  London,  1877,  i.  384 — 386. 

5.  AN  UNKNOWN  WRITER.     Epiphanius  knew  and  used  an  ancient 
work   that   criticized   very  severely  the   prophecy  of  the  Montanists, 
especially  their  ecstatic  utterances5.     Voigt  believed  that  this  was  a 
work  by  Rhodon ;  RolfTs  held  it  to  have  been  written  by  Hippolytus. 
Both  opinions  are  subject  to  grave  objections. 

H.  G.  Voigt,  Eine  verschollene  Urkunde  des  antimontanistischen  Kampfes. 
Die  Berichte  des  Epiphanius  liber  die  Kataphryger  und  Quintillianer  unter- 
sucht,  Leipzig,  1891.  E.  Rolffs,  Urkunden  aus  dem  antimontanistischen 
Kampfe  des  Abendlandes,  in  Texte  und  Untersuchungen,  Leipzig,  1895,  xii. 
99  ff.  122  ff. 

§  36.     Writings  of  Ecclesiastical  Authorities  and  Synods,    chiefly  concerning 
Heresies  and  Schisms. 

I.  WRITINGS  OF  POPES.  Pope  Soter  (ca.  166—174)  wrote  a 
Letter  to  the  Christians  of  Corinth  in  the  name  of  the  Roman  com 
munity  (§  8,  2  3);  he  is  also  said  to  have  written  a  work  against 

1  Hist,  eccl.,  v.    18.  2  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,   ii.   25,   6;  vi.  20,   3. 

3  Ib.,  vi.  20;  ii.  25,   6—7;  iii.   28,    i  —  2,   31,   4.  4  Bibl.   Cod.  48. 

5  Haer.,  48,    1  —  13. 

§    36.      WRITINGS    OF   ECCLESIASTICAL    AUTHORITIES    AND    SYNODS.       125 

the  Montanists  (§35,  i).  The  Roman  bishop  who,  according  to 
Tertullian *,  gave  letters  of  communion  to  the  Montanist  communities 
in  Asia  Minor,  but  soon  withdrew  them,  was  either  Pope  Eleutherus 
(ca.  174 — 189;  cf.  §  34,  i)  or  his  successor,  Pope  Victor  I.  (189  to 
198/199).  During  the  great  controversy  concerning  the  time  of 
the  Easter  celebration,  Pope  Victor  wrote  several  Encyclical  Letters, 
it  is  supposed  to  all  the  churches ;  among  them  were  a  Letter  which 
urged  the  holding  of  synods  for  the  settling  of  these  troubles2,  a 
Letter  in  promulgation  of  the  decision  of  a  Roman  synod  3,  and  a 
Letter  which  excluded  the  refractory  churches  of  Asia  Minor  from 
ecclesiastical  communion  on  the  ground  that  their  stubborn  retention 
of  the  Quartodeciman  custom  proclaimed  them  heretics  *.  Victor  was 
a  native  of  Roman  Africa,  and  according  to  St.  Jerome  5  wrote  some 
theological  treatises  in  Latin  (mediocria  de  religione  volumina  6j. 
For  this  reason  he  is  reckoned  by  St.  Jerome  the  first  of  the  Latin 
ecclesiastical  writers.  According  to  Optatus  of  Mileve  Pope  Zephyrin 
(199 — 217),  wrote  a  work  against  heretics7. 

For  the  «testimonia»  concerning  Pope  Victor,  cf.  Caspar  i,  Quellen  zur 
Gesch.  des  Taufsymbols  und  der  Glaubensregel,  Christiania,  1875,  iii.  413  f. 
432  ff . ;  Harnack,  Der  pseudocyprianische  Traktat  De  aleatoribus,  in  Texte 
und  Untersuchungen ,  Leipzig,  1888,  v.  i,  no  ff.  For  the  tractate  De 
aleatoribus  that  Harnack  adjudicated  to  Pope  Victor,  cf.  §  51,  6  g.  J.  Turmel, 
L'£glise  romaine  jusqu'au  pape  Victor,  in  Revue  catholique  des  figlises, 
1905,  3—21. 

2.  DIONYSIUS  OF  CORINTH.  Dionysius,  bishop  of  Corinth  and  con 
temporary  of  Pope  Soter  (see  p.  123),  was  highly  esteemed  in  his  time, 
and  his  judgment  sought  for  by  many  churches  in  matters  of  contro 
versy.  There  was  extant  in  the  days  of  Eusebius  a  collection  of 
his  seven  « Catholic »  Letters  written  to  as  many  communities,  together 
with  a  private  letter  of  Dionysius8.  The  last  of  these  « Catholic » 
Letters  was  written  in  grateful  response  to  a  letter  of  the  Roman 
community;  Eusebius  has  preserved  for  us  four  interesting  and  valuable 
passages  9.  He  says  also  10  that  the  Letter  to  the  Nicomedians  was 
directed  against  the  heresy  of  Marcion.  Apropos  of  the  Letter  to 
the  community  of  Cnossus  in  Crete,  Eusebius  tells  us  n  of  a  reply 
to  Dionysius,  written  by  Pinytus,  bishop  of  Cnossus.  What  Jerome 
relates  12  about  Dionysius  and  Pinytus  is  taken  from  Eusebius. 

Cf.  Routh ,  Reliquiae  Sacrae  (2.  ed.),  i.  175 — 201:  BB.  Dionysius  et 

1  Adv.  Prax.,   c.   i.  2  Polycrates,  in  Eus.,  Hist,    eccl.,  v.  24,   8. 

3  Eus.,  1.  c.,  v.   23,   3.  4  Ib.,  v.   24,   9. 

5  De  viris  illustr.,   c.   53  ;   cf.  c.   34. 

6  Hier.,  Chron.   ad  a.  Abr.    2209. 

7  De  schism.  Donat.,   i.  9.  8  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,   iv.   23. 

9  Ib.,  iv.  23,    10—12;  ii.   25,  8.  10  Ib.,  iv.   23,  4.  ll  Ib.,   iv.   23,    7—8. 

12  De  viris  illustr.,   cc.   27 — 28. 

126  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

3.  SERAPION  OFANTIOCH.   Serapion,  bishop  of  Antioch  (199 — 211), 
wrote  many  Letters,  the  addresses  of  some  of  which  are  made  known 
to  us  by  Eusebius  *,  e.  g.  one  to  a  certain  Domninus,  who  had  fallen 
away  from   the  Christian   faith   during   a   persecution    and    become  a 
Jew ;  another  to  Pontius  and  Caricus  against  Montanism  2,  also  a  Letter 
to  the  Christians  of  Rhossus  warning   them   not  to  read  the  Gospel 
of  Peter  (§  29,   5). 

Cf.  Routh,  1.  c.,  i.  447 — 462;  Migne,  PG.,  v.  1371 — 1376.  For  other 
details  concerning  Serapion  see  de  Buck ,  in  Acta  SS.  Oct.  (xm),  Paris, 
1883,  pp.  248—252. 

a   result    of  the   Encyclical    Letter    of  Pope  Victor   I.    (see    p.    125) 
synods   were   held    in   several    places,    to    discuss   the    celebration  of 
Easter,  and  the  decisions  of  the  Fathers  were  communicated  to  the 
Pope.     Eusebius  gives  a  list  of  such  synods,  and  quotes  some  frag 
ments  from  their  writings3. 

These  fragments  are  two  passages  from  the  Letter  which  a  synod  ot 
Asia  Minor  sent  to  the  Pope  through  Polycrates  of  Ephesus  in  justification 
of  the  Quartodeciman  practice  (cf.  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  v.  24,  2 — 8;  iii.  31,  3; 
Hier.,  De  viris  illustr.,  c.  45),  and  the  conclusion  of  a  Letter  sent  to  the 
Pope  by  a  synod  of  Palestine  that  was  presided  over  by  Theophilus, 
bishop  of  Caesarea,  and  Narcissus,  bishop  of  Jerusalem.  It  decided  for  the 
Western  (Roman)  practice  (cf.  Eus.,  1.  c.,  v.  25;  Hier.,  1.  c.,  c.  43).  The 
latter  fragment  is  in  Routh.,  1.  c.,  ii.  i — 7;  Migne,,  1.  c.,  v.  1365 — 1372; 
for  the  other  two  see  Routh,  ii.  9—36;  Migne,  v.  1355 — 1362.  The 
Letter  of  Bacchyllus,  bishop  of  Corinth,  was  a  private  missive  (cf.  Eus., 
1.  c.,  v.  23,  4),  erroneously  stated  by  Jerome  (1.  c. ,  c.  44)  to  have  been 
a  synodical  writing. 




§  37.     General  Considerations. 

Since  the  end  of  the  second  century  the  need  of  a  scientific 
treatment  of  the  teaching  of  the  Church  was  felt  with  increasing 
force.  History,  exegesis,  and  philosophy  put  forward  their  claims  as 
auxiliaries  of  Christian  truth.  Ecclesiastical  literature  thus  entered 
upon  new  lines  of  development;  new  aims  and  new  paths  were 
opened  up.  The  older  apologists  and  anti-heretical  writers  had  created 
a  literature  of  defence  and  attack;  henceforth  there  was  to  be, 
within  the  Church  herself,  a  peaceful  growth  of  literary  activity.  This 

1  Hist,  eccl.,   vi.    12;   cf.  Hier  on.,  De  viris  illustr.,   c.  41. 

2  Hist,  eccl.,  v.    19.  3  Ib.,  v.   23—25. 

§    38.       CLEMENT    OF    ALEXANDRIA. 

scientific  tendency  was  liveliest  in  the  Christian  East  where  the 
catechetical  school  of  Alexandria  soon  became  known  as  a  famous 
centre  and  nursery  of  ecclesiastical  science.  Its  origin  is  shrouded 
in  obscurity.  About  180,  it  appears  in  full  operation,  but  as  an 
institution  long-since  established  *.  It  was  probably  at  first  only  a 
school  for  catechumens ,  but  when  Pantaenus  took  charge  of  it, 
about  1 80,  it  must  have  already  acquired  the  character  of  a  Chris 
tian  academy  in  which  all  Greek  science  was  studied  and  made 
to  do  apologetic  service  in  favour  of  the  Christian  cause.  Under 
Clement  and  Origen  it  reached  the  acme  of  its  renown  that  however 
began  to  fade  in  the  fourth  century.  The  devotion  to  scientific  labours 
now  spread  from  Alexandria  to  Palestine.  Alexander,  a  disciple  of 
the  catechists  Pantaenus  and  Clement,  began,  as  bishop  of  Jeru 
salem,  a  theological  library  in  the  Holy  City  itself2.  A  little  later, 
about  233,  when  Origen  sought  a  new  home  in  Palestine,  he  opened 
a  school  at  Caesarea  in  which  the  scientific  element  was  even  more 
strongly  emphasized  than  at  Alexandria.  In  the  second  half  of  the 
same  century  the  learned  presbyter  Pamphilus  laboured  actively  at 
Caesarea  for  the  academical  interests  of  the  Church.  He  is  usually 
credited  with  having  founded  there  the  famous  library  that  was  so 
serviceable  to  Eusebius  and  Jerome ;  there  can  be  no  doubt,  however, 
that  the  beginnings  of  this  most  valuable  of  all  the  ancient  Christian 
libraries  were  owing  to  Origen 3.  The  Christian  masters  of  Alex 
andria  extended  their  vigorous  and  efficient  influence  as  far  as  Asia 
Minor.  Of  the  two  most  important  ecclesiastical  writers  that  we 
meet  there  in  the  third  century,  Gregory  Thaumaturgus  was  a 
disciple  of  Origen,  bred  in  his  school  at  Caesarea ,  while  Methodius 
of  Olympus  made  it  his  life-work  to  oppose  the  theology  of  that 

H.  E.  F.  Guerike ,  De  schola  quae  Alexandriae  floruit  catechetica, 
Halle,  1824 — 1825,  i — ii.  C.  F.  W,  Hasselbach,  De  schola  quae  Alexandriae 
floruit  catechetica,  Stettin,  1826 — 1839,  i — n-  Ch>  Bigg '>  The  Christian 
Platonists  of  Alexandria,  Oxford,  1886.  F.  Lehmann,  Die  Katechetenschule 
zu  Alexandria  kritisch  beleuchtet,  Leipzig,  1896  (of  small  value).  A.  Ehr- 
hard ,  Die  griechische  Patriarchalbibliothek  von  Jerusalem ,  in  Rom. 
Quartalschr.  fiir  christl.  Altertumskunde  und  fur  Kirchengesch.  (1891),  v. 
217—265  329—331  383—384;  (1892),  vi.  339—365- 

§  38.     Clement  of  Alexandria. 

I .  HIS  LIFE.  Titus  Flavius  Clemens  was  born  about  1 50,  probably 
at  Athens 4,  it  is  supposed  of  heathen  parents.  After  his  conversion 
to  Christianity  he  travelled  extensively  through  Southern  Italy,  Syria 

1  £c  &p%aiou  £$oy?,  Etts.,  Hist,  eccl.,  v.   10,    i.  2  Ib.,  vi.  20,    I. 

3  Hieron.,  De  viris  illustr.,   c.    113.  4  Epiph.,  Haer.,   32,   6. 

128  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

and  Palestine,  finally  through  Egypt,  seeking  everywhere  the  society 
and  instruction  of  Christian  teachers  l.  At  Alexandria  he  fell 
under  the  spell  of  the  catechist  Pantaenus.  As  a  result,  he  took 
up  his  permanent  residence  in  that  city,  apparently  a  little  before 
1 80,  and  became  a  presbyter  of  that  church2.  Since  about  190  he 
was  the  associate  and  assistant  of  Pantsenus  in  the  \vork  of  the 
school;  after  the  death  of  the  latter,  about  200,  he  took  up  the 
head-mastership  of  the  same 3.  As  early  as  202  or  203  he  was 
obliged  to  quit  Alexandria  because  of  the  persecution  that  broke 
out  under  Septimius  Severus.  We  meet  him ,  about  2 1 1 ,  in  Asia 
Minor  in  the  company  of  his  former  disciple  Alexander,  the  future 
bishop  of  Jerusalem 4.  A  letter  of  Alexander  to  Origen,  written  in 
215  or  216,  speaks  of  Clement  as  a  father  gone  to  his  rest5. 

y.  H.  Reinkens,  De  Clemente  presbytero  alexandrine,  homine,  scriptore, 
philosophic,  theologo  liber,  Breslau,  1851.  E.  Freppel ,  Clement  d'Alex- 
andrie,  Paris,  1865;  3.  ed.  Paris,  1886.  B.  F.  Westcott,  Clement  of  Alex 
andria,  in  Diet,  of  Christ.  Biogr.,  London,  1877,  i.  559  —  567.  F.  Bohringer, 
Die  griechischen  Vater  des  3.  und  4.  Jahrhunderts.  i.  Clemens  und  Ori- 
genes  (Die  Kirche  Christi  und  ihre  Zeugen,  i.  2,  i,  2.  ed.),  Zurich,  1869. 
Th.  Zahn,  Forschungen  zur  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons,  etc.  (1884), 
iii.  156 — 176. 

2.  CLEMENT  AS  A  WRITER.  He  is  an  epoch-making  figure  in  the 
history  of  the  growth  of  early  Christian  literature.  He  differs  from 
his  teachers  inasmuch  as  they  had  confined  themselves  to  oral  in 
struction,  while  he  added  thereto  the  use  of  the  written  page  as 
an  academical  means  of  forming  the  minds  of  his  pupils 6.  His 
purpose  is  the  scientific  establishment  of  the  teachings  of  the 
Church;  he  is  desirous  of  furnishing  it  with  a  good  basis  of  philo 
sophy  and  of  reconciling  it  with  contemporary  thought.  The  source 
of  his  frequent  slips  and  errors  is  to  be  found  in  the  fact  that  he 
is  better  equipped  to  appreciate  the  ideal  content  of  Christian  truth 
than  to  expound  the  positive  theology  of  redemption.  To  the  cause 
of  Christianity,  which  he  espoused  with  a  generous  zeal,  he  brought 
a  highly  gifted  nature  and  an  encyclopedic  knowledge.  Clement 
is  well-acquainted  with  the  profane  writers  of  Greece,  and  particularly 
with  the  works  of  Plato.  Much  of  the  earlier  ecclesiastical  literature 
was  also  well-known  to  him.  His  diction  is  relatively  pure,  and  his 
exposition  « flowery  and  exuberant  and  very  agreeable »  7.  Of  the 
extensive  « Introduction  to  Christianity »  to  which  he  devoted  many 
years  of  his  life,  nearly  all  has  been  preserved  (Protrepticus,  Paed- 
agogus,  Stromata).  He  wrote  another  important  work,  the  Hypotyposes, 
of  which  only  insignificant  fragments  have  come  down  to  us.  Similarly, 
out  of  a  series  of  minor  writings  only  one  Homily  has  been  preserved. 

1  Strom.,  i.    i,    n.  2  Paed.,  i.   6,   37.  8  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.  6. 

4  Ib.,  vi.    n,    5 — 6.  5  Ib.,  vi.    14,   8—9. 

6  Strom.,  i.   i,   11—14;  cf.  Eclog.  27.  7  Phot.,  Bibl.  Cod.   no. 

§    38.       CLEMENT    OF    ALEXANDRIA. 

The  first  editions  of  his  works  were  brought  out  by  P.  Victorius,  Flo 
rence,  1550,  and  by  Fr.  Sylburg ,  Heidelberg,  1592.  The  best  and  most 
complete  edition  is  that  of  J.  Potter,  Oxford,  1715  (Venice,  1757),  2  voll., 
often  reprinted,  e.  g.  by  Fr.  Oberthiir,  Wiirzburg,  1778 — 1779,  3  voll.; 
£.  Klotz,  Leipzig,  1831—1834,  4  voll.;  Migne,  PG.,  viii— ix.  1857.  The 
edition  of  TV.  Dindorf,  Oxford,  1869,  4  voll.,  failed  to  meet  the  reasonable 
expectations  of  many.  Cf.  P.  de  Lagarde,  in  Gotting.  gelehrte  Anzeigen, 
1870,  pp.  801  —  824,  and  Id.,  Symmikta,  Gottingen,  1877,  pp.  10 — 24. 
Valuable  contributions  to  these  editions  of  Clement  are  found  in  Zahn, 
Forschungen  zur  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons,  etc.  (1884),  iii:  Supple- 
mentum  Clementinum.  O.  Staehlin ,  Observationes  criticae  in  Clementem 
Alexandrinum  (Dissert,  inaug.),  Erlangen,  1890.  Id.,  Beitrage  zur  Kenntnis 
der  Handschriften  des  Glemens  Alexandrinus  (Progr.),  Niirnberg,  1895. 
Id.,  Untersuchungen  liber  die  Scholien  zu  Clemens  Alex.  (Progr.),  Niirn 
berg,  1897.  Preuschen,  in  Harnack ,  Gesch.  der  altchristl.  Literatur,  i. 
296 — 327.  O.  Staehlin,  Zur  handschriftlichen  Uberlieferung  des  Clemens 
Alex.,  Leipzig,  1901  (Texte  und  Untersuchungen,  new  series,  v.  4). 

3.  PROTREPTICUS.  PAEDAGOGUS.  STROMATA.  These  three  treatises 
are  parts  of  a  complete  whole  1  designed  to  act  as  a  graduated  or 
progressive  introduction  to  Christianity.  The  first  part  or  « Exhortation 
to  the  Heathen »  (npoTpsirTixoQ  xpbc,  °EXX^vaq)  is  closely  related,  in 
form  and  contents,  to  the  earlier  apologetic  literature  of  the  second 
century.  It  opens  with  an  eloquent  invitation  to  listen  no  more  to 
the  mythical  chants  about  the  gods  of  heathendom,  but  to  the  new 
song  of  which  the  Logos  that  went  forth  from  Sion  is  at  once  singer 
and  theme  (c.  i).  Thereupon  it  exposes  the  folly  and  worthlessness 
of  the  heathen  religious  beliefs  and  practices  (cc.  2 — 7),  and  praises 
the  truth  made  known  by  the  prophets  (cc.  8 — 12).  The  three 
books  of  the  Paedagogus  (iratdaftofogj  are  meant  as  a  training  in  the 
new  Christian  life  for  the  reader  who  has  already  turned  away  from 
heathenism2.  The  first  book  treats  of  the  educational  purpose  of  the 
Logos,  of  the  children  (^aidsq)  to  be  educated,  and  of  the  educational 
method,  a  combination  of  love  and  mildness  with  wrathful  and  puni 
tive  justice.  The  other  two  books  contain  detailed  instruction  con 
cerning  food  and  drink,  dwellings  and  furniture,  feasts  and  amuse 
ments,  sleep  and  recreation,  the  relations  of  the  sexes,  dress  and 
ornament,  and  the  like.  Apart  from  a  few  chapters,  especially 
at  the  beginning  and  close  of  the  third  book,  the  text  does  not  rise 
above  the  level  of  a  sprightly  «causerie».  It  often  assumes  a  facetious 
tinge  and  occasionally  runs  over,  especially  in  polemic,  into  broad 
humour.  In  some  later  manuscripts  two  Hymns  are  added  to  the 
Paedagogus,  a  Hymn  to  Jesus  Christ  (UJUVOQ  TOO  aatrr^poQ  XpLaroo) 
attributed  to  Clement  and  perhaps  written  by  him,  or  at  least  added 
by  him  to  the  text,  and  a  Hymn  to  the  Paedagogus  (slq  rov 
natdafaiyov),  by  some  unknown  reader  of  the  work.  -  -  In  the  only 
manuscript  that  has  reached  us  of  the  third  and  crowning  section  of 

1  Paed.,  i.    i;   Strom.,  vi.    i,    i.  2  Cf.   Paed.,  i.    i. 



this  introduction,  it  is  entitled  a^ocojuars^  or  « Miscellanies »  (strictly, 
« Tapestries »).  Internal  evidence  shows  that  the  original  title  was  xara 
T7]v  dtyd-rj  <pikoao<pta.v  fywa-wwy  bitopvyftaTtov  arpoifjLarstQ9  i.  e.  « Ta 
pestries  of  scientific  commentaries  according  to  the  true  philosophy »  *. 
It  was  his  intention  to  present  in  this  work  a  scientific  account  of 
the  revealed  truths  of  Christianity2.  The  contents  however  cor 
respond  very  imperfectly  to  our  just  expectations.  The  Stromata 
are  ever  relapsing  into  the  propaedeutic  tone  of  the  Protrepticus  and 
the  Paedagogus,  or  entering  upon  lines  of  apologetic  discourse,  or 
taking  up  questions  of  practical  morality;  thus  they  repeatedly  put 
off  the  treatment  of  the  theme  announced  in  their  opening  para 
graph.  The  first  book  deals  chiefly  with  the  importance  of  philo 
sophy  and  its  utility  for  Christian  knowledge.  In  the  second  book 
the  author  insists  strongly  on  the  superiority  of  revealed  truth  to 
all  the  works  of  human  reason.  In  the  third  and  fourth  books  he 
calls  attention  to  two  practical  criteria  that  differentiate,  in  striking- 
contrast,  the  Catholic  from  the  heretical  Gnosis  -  -  they  are  the 
striving  for  moral  perfection  visible  in  virginal  and  married  chastity, 
and  the  love  of  God  as  made  manifest  in  martyrdom.  The  fifth 
'book  returns  to  the  relations  of  the  true  Gnosis  and  faith,  deals 
with  the  symbolical  presentation  of  the  truths  of  religion,  and  enu 
merates  the  elements  of  truth  borrowed  by  the  Hellenic  from  the 
so-called  barbarian  (Jewish  and  Christian)  philosophy.  The  sixth 
and  seventh  books  offer  a  faithful  portrait  of  the  true  Gnostic;  he 
is  the  personification  of  all  Christian  perfection.  Clement  excuses 
the  lack  of  order  and  unity  in  the  Stromata  and  accounts  for  it  by 
recalling  to  the  attention  of  the  reader  the  peculiar  purpose  of  the 
work3.  In  the  preface  of  the  fourth  book  he  confesses  that  he  had 
hoped  to  finish  the  subject  in  one  book,  but  the  abundance  of  material 
was  so  great  (TLO  Tr/^tisc  TCOV  Trpa^fjtdrco^)  that  he  was  carried  far 
beyond  his  original  plan 4 ;  yet  at  the  end  of  the  seventh  book  he 
has  not  mastered  it,  and  feels  bound  to  promise  other  books5;  he 
seems,  indeed,  to  have  written  an  eighth  book6.  The  above-mentioned 
manuscript  offers  an  eighth  book,  but  it  is  only  a  small  tractate, 
mutilated  at  beginning  and  end,  on  the  strictly  logical  process  to  be 
followed  in  the  search  for  truth.  Then  follow  excerpts  from  the 
writings  of  Theodotus  and  other  disciples  of  the  Oriental  school  of 
Valentine,  usually  known  as  Excerpta  ex  scriptis  Theodoti  (§25,  5), 
also  selected  passages  from  the  Prophets,  known  as  Ex  scripturis  pro- 
pheticis  eclogae  (ex  TOJV  TcpoipTjTtx&v  sx^o^aij.  Zahn  holds  that  these 
three  fragments  are  selections  from  the  original  contents  of  the  eighth 
book,  while  von  Arnim  maintains  that  they  represent  rough  sketches 

1  Strom.,  i.   29,    182;  iii.    18,    1 10,   al.  2  Paed  ,   i.    i;   Strom.,  vi.    I,    I. 

3  i.    I,    18;   iv.   2,   4,   al.  4  iv.    I,    I.  5  vii.    18,    ill. 

6  Ens.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.    13,    i;  Phot.,  Bibl.   Cod.    in. 

§    38-       CLEMENT    OF    ALEXANDRIA.  13! 

and  preliminary  studies  of  Clement,  perhaps  for  the  eighth  book  of  the 
Stromata ;  probably,  however,  for  other  writings.  The  Protrepticus  may 
have  been  written  before  189,  the  Paedagogiis  about  190,  the  Stromata 
about  200- — -202/203.  Many  of  the  numerous  authors  quoted  by  Cle 
ment  were  very  probably  known  to  him  only  through  anthologies. 
In  the  acceptance  and  use  of  those  Judaistic-Alexandrine  forgeries 
which  pretend  to  establish  the  intellectual  priority  of  the  Hebrews  as 
compared  with  the  Greeks,  he  showed  himself  credulous  and  uncritical. 
Wendland  is  of  opinion  that  lengthy  passages  of  the  Paedagogus 
and  the  Stromata  were  borrowed  from  the  Stoic  Musonius,  the  teacher 
of  Epictetus,  or  at  least  from  the  lectures  of  Musonius  as  represented 
by  the  notes  of  some  student  of  that  master.  On  the  other  hand 
Arnobius  and  Theodoret  of  Cyrus  made  extensive  use  of  the  writings 
of  Clement. 

The  Protrepticus  and  the  Paedagogus  have  reached  us  through  the  Arethas- 
Codex  (§  13)  of  A.  D.  914,  and  some  copies  of  the  same;  the  Stromata 
through  the  Cod.  Flor.  Laurent.  V  3  (saec.  xi),  and  a  copy  of  it.  On  the 
plan  and  nature  of  the  entire  work  cf.  Overbeck,  in  Histor.  Zeitschr.,  new 
series  (1882),  xii.  454  ff.  D.  Dragomeros ,  KA^JXSVTOC  'AXs£avop£u>€  6  7:90- 
Tpsmxo?  irpoc  f'EXXT)va;  7,070;,  Bucarest,  1890.  O.Staehlin,  Clemens  Alexandri- 
nus,  i;  Protrepticus  und  Paedagogus  (Die  griechischen  christlichen  Schrift- 
steller),  Leipzig,  1905.  £.  Taverni,  Sopra  il  -aioVfor/o;  di  Tito  Flavio  Cle- 
mente  Alessandrino,  Rome,  1885. 

For  a  German  version  of  the  Protrepticus  and  Paedagogus  cf.  L.  Hopfen- 
muller  and  J.  Wimnier,  Kempten,  1875  (Bibliothek  der  Kirchenvater).  The 
first  of  the  two  Hymns  at  the  end  of  the  Paedagogus  was  published  in  a 
carefully  revised  text  by  W.  Christ  and  M.  Paranikas ,  Anthologia  graeca 
carminum  christianorum ,  Leipzig,  1871,  pp.  37  ff. ;  cf.  xvm  ft".  For  the 
chronological  chapter  in  the  Stromata  (i.  21,  101 — 147)  cf.  the  classical 
recension  of  P.  de  Lagarde,  in  Abhandlungen  der  k.  Gesellsch.  der  Wissen- 
schaften  in  Gottingen  (1891),  xxxvii.  73  ff.  V.  Hozakowski ,  De  chrono- 
graphia  dementis  Alexandrini  (Dissert,  inaug.),  Minister,  1896  (see  n.  9). 
On  the  eighth  book  of  the  Stromata  (Excerpta  ex  Theodoto,  Eclogae  pro- 
pheticae)  cf.  Zahn ,  Forschungen  zur  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons 
(1884),  iii.  104 — 130;  P.  Ruben,  Clementis  Alexandrini  excerpta  ex  Theo 
doto  (Dissert,  inaug.),  Leipzig,  1892;  J.  von  Arnim,  De  octavo  Clementis 
Stromatorum  libro  (Progr.),  Rostock,  1894;  O.  Clausen,  Zur  Stromateis 
des  Clemens  Alex,  und  ihrem  Verhaltnis  zum  Protrepticos  und  Paedagogos, 
in  Zeitschr.  fiir  wissenschaftl.  Theol.  (1902),  xlv.  465- — 512.  There  is  an 
English  translation ,  by  W.  Wilson ,  of  the  writings  of  Clement  in  Ante- 
Nicene  Fathers  (Am.  ed.  1885),  ii.  171 — 604.  The  hymns  are  translated  by 
W.  Alexander.  F.  J.  A.  Hort  and  J.  B.  Mayor ,  Clement  of  Alexandria, 
Miscellanies,  book  7,  Greek  text  with  introduction,  translation,  notes, 
dissertations,  and  indices,  London,  1903;  J.  Bernays ,  Zu  Aristoteles  und 
Clemens,  1864,  reprinted  in  Gesammelte  Abhandlungen  von  J.  B.,  heraus- 
gegeben  von  H.  Usener,  Berlin,  1885,  i.  151 — 164;  P.  Wendland,  Quae- 
stiones  Musonianae.  De  Musonio  stoico  Clementis  Alexandrini  aliorumque 
auctore,  Berlin,  1886;  Id.,  in  Beitrage  zur  Gesch.  der  griech.  Philosophic 
und  Religion  von  P.  W.  und  O.  Kern,  Berlin,  1895,  PP-  68  ff • ;  ^-*  Phil° 
und  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  in  Hermes  (1896),  xxxi.  435 — 456;  Ad.  Scheck, 
De  fontibus  Clementis  Alexandrini  (Progr.),  Augsburg,  1889;  W.  Christ, 

132  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

Philologische  Sttidien  zu  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  Miinchen,  1900  (Abhand- 
lungen  der  kgl.  bayr.  Akad.  der  Wissensch.)  ;  H.  Jackson,  Notes  on  Cle 
ment  of  Alexandria  (Stromata),  in  Journal  of  philology  (1902),  xxvii. 

I31  —  135- 

A.  Rohricht,  De  Clemente  Alexandrino  Arnobii  in  irridendo  gentilium 
cultu  deorum  auctore  (Progr.),  Hamburg,  1893.  C.  Roos,  De  Theodoreto 
dementis  et  Eusebii  compilatore  (Dissert,  inaug.),  Halle,  1883.  F.  Schwartz, 
Zu  Clemens'  Tfe  6  tJci>C6fievoc  rXoujio;,  in  Hermes  (1903),  xxxviii.  75  —  100. 

4.  IIYPOTYPOSES.  The  work  entitled  oTioror.coaetc  (outlines,  sketches) 
contained    in    eight    books   a   brief  commentary    on    the   Scriptures, 
including   the  Letter   of  Barnabas   and   the  Apocalypse  of  Peter.     It 
was  interspersed  with   excursus  of  a  dogmatic  or   historical  nature  1. 
There  are  some  Greek  fragments  of  it  in  Eusebius,  Photius,  Oecumenius, 
and  others,  also  in  the  so-called  Adumbrationes  Clementis  Alexandrini 
in  epistulas  canonicas.     This   latter   text   is   a  Latin   version    of  the 
commentary    of  Clement    on    the  First  Epistle    of  Peter,    the  Epistle 
of  Jude,    First  and  Second   of  John,    made    by  order  of  Cassiodorus 
and  cleansed  of  dogmatically  offensive  passages. 

Zahn,  Forschungen  zur  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons,  iii.  64  —  103 
130  —  156;  Prenschen  (see  n.  2),  pp.  306  f.;  collated  with  a  later  codex  Zahris 
edition  of  the  Adumbrationes  (1.  c.,  pp.  79  —  93);  G.  Mercati,  i:  Un  fram- 
mento  delle  ipotiposi  di  Clemente  Alessandrino  ;  ii:  Paralipomena  ambro- 
siana,  con  alcuni  appunti  sulle  benedizioni  del  cereo  pasquale,  in  Studi  e 
Testi,  Rome,  1904,  n.  10. 

5.  QUIS  DIVES  SALVETUR.     This  little  work  (Who  is  the  rich  man 
that  is  saved?:   TIQ  o  (T(oC6fj.evoQ  TtAotimog),  highly  prized  even  in  anti 
quity,  is  a  Homily  on  Mk.  x.   17  —  31.    The  Lord,  says  Clement,  does 
not  intend  to  exclude   any  rich    man    from    the  kingdom  of  heaven; 
he  only  commands  us  to  mortify  in  spirit  our  attachment  to  the  goods 
of  this  earth  and  to  make  good  use  of  our  possessions  2.    It  must  have 
been  written  shortly  after  the  publication  of  the  Stromata3. 

The  editio  princeps  is  that  of  M.  Ghisler  ,  Leyden,  1623;  recent  se 
parate  editions  are  owing  to  W.  Br.  Lindner,  Leipzig,  1861;  K.  Rosier, 
Freiburg,  1893  (Sammlung  ausgew.  kirchen-  und  dogmengeschichtl.  Quellen- 
schriften,  vi)  ;  P.  M.  Barnard,  Cambridge,  1897  (Texts  and  Studies,  v.  2). 
Former  editions  were  based  on  a  Codex  Vatican,  (saec.  xv);  but  Barnard 
discovered  the  archetype  of  this  manuscript  in  Codex  Scorial.  (saec.  xi). 
A  German  version  of  the  Homily  was  made  by  L.  Hopfenmilller,  Kempten, 
1875  (Bibl-  der  Kirchenvater).  It  was  translated  into  English  by  P.  M. 
Barnard,  London,  1900. 

Clement  had  intended  to  write  special  works  on  various  themes;  we 
do  not   know    that   he  was  able  to  execute  them.     Thus   it  was  his 
purpose  to  write  on  the  resurrection:  Trepl  dvaardaetoQ^;  on  prophecy: 

1  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.    13,   2;    14,    i;   Phot.,  Bibl.   Cod.    109. 

2  Cf.  Paed.,   ii.   3;  iii.  6.  3  Cf.   c.   26  and  Strom.,  iv.    i,   2—3. 
4  Paed.,  i.  6,  47;  ii.    10,    104. 

§    38.       CLEMENT    OF    ALEXANDRIA.  133 

i  npo<f>7)T£iaq,  in  defence  of  the  inspiration  of  the  biblical  books 
and  in  opposition  to  Montanism1;  on  the  soul:  nep}  ^oyj/Q,  against 
Basilidians  and  Marcionites  2  ;  perhaps  on  Genesis,  or  the  Creation: 
SIQ  ryy  fivzoiv^.  In  the  Paedagogus^  he  refers  to  a  former  work  on 
continence:  xspl  efxpaTeiaQ;  in  the  Quis  Dives  (c.  26)  to  his  dis 
cussion  on  First  Principles  and  on  Theology  (dpywv  xai  fteoXoyiac, 
ssy-fYjatQj.  Wendland  holds  that  in  the  first  passage  Clement  has 
merely  copied,  and  rather  carelessly,  the  title  of  a  work  of  the 
Stoic  Musonius.  It  is  true,  however,  that  he  announced  in  the 
Stromata5  a  work  on  the  dpyai  and  on  fteoXoyia.  Eusebius  mentions 
four  other  works  6  :  a)  on  Easter  (nepi  TOO  Tidaya),  occasioned  by  the 
homonymous  work  of  Melito  of  Sardes  and  directed  against  the 
Quartodecimans  of  Asia  Minor  7  ;  b)  an  Ecclesiastical  Canon,  against 
Judaizers:  xavcoy,  y  rrpoQ  robq  loudat£ovra£&  ;  c)  Homilies 
on  fasting  and  on  calumny:  diaMzstQ  Kepi  vqarsiaq  xat  irepl  xara- 
;  d)  an  Exhortation  to  perseverance,  or  to  the  newly  baptized: 

O    TrpOTpSTTTtXOQ     TtpOQ    'JTtOfJLOyqV    'fj     TZpOQ     TOUQ     VSOiffTt    ftsftaTZTCff/llvOUC;  10. 

Some  texts  of  the  first  two  are  found  in  later  writers.  Barnard  believ 
ed  (1897)  that  he  had  discovered  a  fragment  of  the  fourth.  - 
Palladius  is  the  first  to  make  mention  11  of  a  work  on  the  prophet 
Amos:  slg  rov  Tcpopynqv  'dfjtatQ.  A  work  on  Providence:  xspl  Ttpo- 
voiac,  is  first  mentioned  by  Maximus  Confessor,  Anastasius  Sinaita, 
and  later  writers. 

Zahn,  ].  c.;  pp.  32  —  64;  Preuschen,  1.  c.,  pp.  299  —  301  308  —  311  316; 
Barnard,  Clement  of  Alex.,  «Quis  dives  salvetur»,  pp.  47  —  52. 

7.  DOCTRINE  OF  CLEMENT.  From  the  initial  words  of  the  Stromata 
(i.  I,  ii  —  14)  one  might  be  tempted  to  believe  that  the  whole  work  was 
nothing  more  than  a  written  elaboration  of  the  teaching  that  in  former 
years  Clement  had  heard  from  his  instructors,  and  especially  from  Pan- 
tsenus.  It  is  very  probable,  however,  that  such  words  are  only  an 
exaggerated  expression  of  his  own  modesty  and  of  veneration  for  his 
earlier  masters.  Clement  is  frequently  in  conflict  with  ecclesiastical 
tradition,  with  which  he  undertakes  to  combine  elements  that  are 
foreign  to  it.  From  Greek  philosophy  he  borrows  some  far-reaching 
principles,  first  from  the  Stoics,  and  then  from  Plato,  frequently 
through  Philo/  He  is  of  opinion  that  philosophy,  though  its  elements 
of  truth  are  drawn  from  the  Old  Testament,  should  occupy  an  im 
portant  role  in  the  divine  plan  of  redemption.  As  the  Jews  were 

1  Strom.,   i.   24,    158;  iv.    I,   2,   al.  2  Ib.,  ii.   20,    113;   iii.   3,    13,  al. 

3  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.    13,  8;  cf.  Strom.,  iii.    14,   95;  vi.   18,    168. 

4  ii.   10,  94;  cf.  ii.  6,   52;  iii.   8,  41.  5  iv.    i,   2  —  3;   cf.  iii.  3,    13,  al. 

6  Cf.  Hier.,  De  viris  illustr.,   c.   38. 

7  Ens.,  Hist,  eccl.,  iv.  26,  4;  vi.    13,   39.  8  Ib.,  vi.    13,   3. 
9  Ib.              10  Ib.              ll  Hist.  Lausiaca,   c.    139. 

134  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

led  to  Christ  through  the  Law,  so  should  the  Gentiles  come  to  Him 
through  philosophy:  iTiaidafwyzi  yap  xat  atiry  (q  <pdoao<pia)  TO  'E/J^- 
MXOV,  we  (>  wpoz  TOUQ  'EftpaiouQ  s?c  Xpurctw  1.  Only  by  means  of  philo 
sophy  can  the  Christian  advance  from  faith  to  knowledge,  from  7ri<mc 
to  fvajaiQ.  Faith  is,  so  to  speak,  a  concise  knowledge  of  what  is 
necessary:  ffwro/jio^  TCOV  xaTSxetfovTcov  fvojm<;,  while  science  is  a  strong 
and  assured  demonstration  of  those  truths  that  have  been  accepted 
by  faith:  dnodet&q  TCOV  oca  TicffTsojQ  napetty/jifjieMov  layupb.  xat  filftatoQ2. 
To  acquire  knowledge  without  philosophy  is  like  hoping  to  harvest 
grapes  without  caring  for  the  vines 3.  How  far  Clement,  under  the 
guidance  of  philosophy,  had  fallen  away  from  ecclesiastical  doctrine, 
may  be  gathered  from  the  severe  judgment  ofPhotius4  on  \htHypo- 
ty poses  (§  38,  4),  a  work  in  which  Clement  seems  to  have  plunged 
more  deeply  into  speculation  than  in  any  of  his  extant  writings. 
-In  some  places»,  says  Photius,  «he  holds  firmly  to  the  correct  doc 
trine  ;  elsewhere  he  is  carried  away  by  strange  and  impious  notions. 
He  asserts  the  eternity  of  matter,  excogitates  a  theory  of  ideas  from 
the  words  of  Holy  Scripture,  and  reduces  the  Son  to  a  mere  crea 
ture.  He  relates  fabulous  stories  of  a  metempsychosis  and  of  many 
worlds  before  Adam.  Concerning  the  formation  of  Eve  from  Adam 
he  teaches  things  blasphemous  and  scurrilous ,  and  anti-scriptural. 
He  imagines  that  the  angels  held  intercourse  with  women  and  begot 
children  from  them ,  also  that  the  Logos  did  not  become  man  in 
reality  but  only  in  appearance.  It  even  seerns  that  he  has  a  fabulous 
notion  of  two  Logoi  of  the  Father,  of  which  the  inferior  one  appeared 
to  men;  indeed,  not  even  this  one.» 

V.  Hebert-Duperron,  Essai  sur  la  polemique  et  la  philosophic  de  Clement 
d'Alexandrie,  Paris,  1855.  J.  Cognat ,  Clement  d'Alexandrie,  sa  doctrine 
et  sa  polemique,  Paris,  1859.  H.  Preische,  De  -yvcosst  dementis  Alexandrini 
(Dissert,  inaug.),  Jena,  1871.  Knittel ,  Pistis  und  Gnosis  bei  Clemens  von 
Alexandrien,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1873),  Iv.  171  —  219  363 — 417.  C. 
Merk,  Clemens  Alexandrinus  in  seiner  Abhangigkeit  von  der  griechischen 
Philosophic  (Dissert,  inaug.),  Leipzig,  1879.  ^-  de  Faye,  Clement  d'Alex 
andrie  ,  Etude  sur  les  rapports  du  Christianisme  et  de  la  philosophic 
grecque  an  2e  siecle,  Paris,  1898.  H.  Laemmer,  dementis  Alexandrini  de 
Xo^to  doctrina,  Leipzig,  1855.  G.  T/i.  Hitten,  dementis  Alex,  de  SS.  Eucha- 
ristia  doctrina  (Dissert,  inaug.),  Warendorp,  1861.  G.  Anrich ,  Clemens 
und  Origenes  als  Begriinder  der  Lehre  vom  Fegfeuer  (in  Abhandlungen 
fur  H.  J.  Holtzmann),  Tubingen,  1902.  P.  Ziegert ,  Zwei  Abhandlungen 
•iber  T.  Flavius  Clemens  Alexandrinus.  Psychologic  und  Logoschristologie, 
Heidelberg,  1894.  V.  Pascal,  La  foi  et  la  raison  dans  Clement  d'Alexandrie, 
Montdidier,  1901.  Funk,  Clemens  von  Alexandrien  liber  Familie  und 
Eigentum,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1871),  liii.  427—449,  and  in  Kirchen- 
geschichtl.  Abhandlungen  und  Untersuchungen  (1899),  ii.  45  —  60.  Fr.  J, 
Winter ,  Die  Ethik  des  Clemens  von  Alexandrien,  in  Studien  zur  Gesch. 

1  Strom.,   i.   5,   28;   cf.  vi.    17,    159.     Cf.   Gal.  iii.   24. 

2  Strom.,  vii.   io;    57.  3  Ib.,   i.  9,   43-  *  Bibl.   Cod.    109. 

§    3$.       CLEMENT    OF    ALEXANDRIA.  135 

der  christl.  Ethik ,  i,  Leipzig,  1882.  G.  Basilakes ,  KXiqjAsvro?  rou  'AXs;- 
ocvopsoK  ~<]  y;ihxrj  SiSajxaXta  (Dissert,  inaug.) ,  Erlangen,  1892.  A'.  Ernesti, 
Die  Ethik  des  Titus  Flavins  Clemens  von  Alexandrien  oder  die  erste  zu- 
sammenhangende  Begriindung  der  christlichen  Sittenlehre,  Paderborn,  1900. 
Markgraf ,  Clemens  von  Alexandrien  als  asketischer  Schriftsteller  in  seiner 
Stellung  zu  den  natiirlichen  Lebensgiitern ,  in  Zeitschr.  fur  Kirchengesch. 
(1901 — 1902),  xxii.  485 — 515.  N.  Capitaine,  Die  Moral  des  Clemens  von 
Alexandrien,  Paderborn,  1903.  W.  Wagner,  Der  Christ  und  die  Welt  nach 
Clemens  von  Alexandrien,  ein  noch  unveraltetes  Problem  in  altchristlicher 
Beleuchtung,  Gottingen,  1903.  H.  Eickhoff ,  Das  Neue  Testament  des 
Clemens  Alexandrinus  (Progr.),  Schleswig,  1890.  P.  Dausch,  Der  neutesta- 
mentliche  Schriftkanon  und  Clemens  von  Alexandrien,  Freiburg,  1894. 
H.  Kutter,  Clemens  Alexandrinus  und  das  Neue  Testament,  Gieften,  1897. 
P.  M.  Barnard,  The  Biblical  Text  of  Clement  of  Alexandria  in  the  Four 
Gospels  and  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  Cambridge,  1899  (Texts  and  Studies, 
v.  5).  O.  Staehlin ,  Clemens  Alexandrinus  und  die  Septuaginta  (Progr.), 
Niirnberg,  1901.  Bratke ,  Die  Stellung  des  Clemens  Alexandrinus  zum 
antiken  Mysterienwesen ,  in  Theol.  Studien  und  Kritiken,  (1887),  Ix.  647 
to  708,  and  P.  Ziegert ,  ib.  (1894),  Ixvii.  706 — 732.  W.  Wagner.,  Wert 
und  Verwertung  der  griechischen  Bildung  im  Urteil  des  Clemens  von 
Alexandrien,  in  Zeitschr.  fur  wissenschaftl.  Theol.  (1902),  xlv.  213 — 262. 
V.  KranicJi,  Qua  via  ac  ration e  Clemens  Alex,  ethnicos  ad  religionem  chri- 
stianam  adducere  studuerit,  Braunsberg,  1903. 

8.  PANT.ENUS.     He  was   born   in  Sicily  according   to  Clement  (Strom., 
i.   i,   n),  became    a  Christian  missionary  in   the  East  (India    and  Arabia), 
and  was  for  many  years  president  of  the  catechetical  school  of  Alexandria 
(Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  v.   10).     He  died  shortly  before  200,  and  left  no  writings 
(Clem.,  Strom.,  i.   i,   11—14;  Eclog.  27).     It  is  very  probable  that  the  as 
sertion  of  Eusebius  (Hist,  eccl.,  v.   10,  4),  that  Pantaenus  had  left  books  of 
his  own  composition  (suyypajjifjiaTa),  and  similar   statements  in  more  recent 
writers  (Maximus  Confessor,  Anastasius  Sinaita)  are  only  a  hasty  inference 
from  the  fact  that  Clement  often  quotes  expressions  from  Pantasnus.   Jerome 
attributes  to  him   many  Commentaries    on  Scripture,    but   he    is   doubtless 
re-iterating  Eusebius  (cf.  De  viris  illustr.,  c.  36;  Ep.  70,  4).    The  <'.testimonia» 
of  the   ancients    concerning  Pantaenus    are   met   with    in  Routh ,   Reliquiae 
sacrae,    i.    373 — 383,    and    are    reprinted  in  Migne,  PG. ,   v.   1327 — 1332, 
more  fully  in  Harnack,   Gesch.    der   altchristl.  Literatur,    i.   291 — 296;    cf. 
particularly  Zahn,  Forschungen,  iii.    156 — 176. 

9.  JUDAS.     A  certain  Judas,    otherwise   unknown,    probably  an  Alexan 
drine  from  what  Eusebius  says  (Hist,  eccl.,  vi.  7  ;  cf.  Hier.,  De  viris  illustr., 
c.  52),  wrote  a  work  on  the  seventy  weeks  of  Daniel:  si?  ra;  ~apa  no  AavifjX 
spoojAaoac,  in  which  he  presented  chronological   reckonings    as    far   as  the 
tenth  year   of  the    reign    of  Septimius  Severus  (203)   and   announced   the 
coming  of  Antichrist  as  imminent.     Similar  prophecies  were   made  during 
the  persecution  of  Septimius  Severus  (cf.  Hipp.,  Comm.  in  Dan.,  iv.   18   19). 
We  only  need  mention  the  quite  unsuccessful  attempt  ofSchlatter  who  under 
took  to  find  in  Clement  (Strom.,  i.   21,   147)  and  in  other  writers  traces  of 
a  Christian  chronography  made  in  the  tenth  year  of  Antoninus  Pius  (148). 
He   hoped,  by  rejection  of  the  dates  of  Eusebius,  to  identify  this  chrono 
graphy  with  the  above-mentioned  work  of  Judas.  —  A.  Schlatter,  Der  Chrono 
graph  aus  dem  zehnten  Jahre  Antonins  (Texte  und  Untersuchungen,   xii.   i), 
Leipzig,    1894.     Harnack,    Gesch.  der   altchristl.  Literatur,    i.  327   755  f . ; 
ii.   i,   225  flf.  406  ff. 

136  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

§  39.     Origen. 

I .  HIS  LIFE  AND  WORKS.  In  the  sixth  book  of  his  Church  History, 
Eusebius  relates  at  length  the  life  and  labors  of  Origen;  of  the  great 
« Apology  for  Origen »  composed  in  common  by  Eusebius  and  Pam- 
philus,  we  possess  but  a  few  small  remnants.  Similarly,  the  correspon 
dence  of  the  great  theologian  has  perished,  with  the  exception  of  a 
few  pieces.  He  was  born  of  Christian  parents  in  185  or  186,  appa 
rently  at  Alexandria.  Probably  it  was  only  at  a  later  period  that 
the  soubriquet  Adamantius  (?Adajy.dvTtO£  =  Man  of  steel)  was  applied 
to  him1.  He  owed  his  first  training  to  his  father  Leonides,  parti 
cularly  an  excellent  religious  formation2.  At  an  early  age  he  fre 
quented  the  catechetical  school  of  Alexandria,  where  he  profited  by 
the  teaching  of  Clement3.  Leonides  suffered  martyrdom  in  the  per 
secution  of  Septirnius  Severus,  202  or  203 ;  the  ardent  desire  of  Origen 
to  share  his  father's  fate  was  frustrated  only  by  his  mother's  ingenuity*. 
Having  lost  its  patrimony  by  confiscation,  the  family,  a  large  one, 
was  reduced  to  poverty.  In  the  meantime  Origen  had  attracted 
the  attention  of  Demetrius,  bishop  of  Alexandria,  and  in  203,  when 
scarcely  eighteen  years  of  age,  was  called  to  the  head-mastership  of 
the  catechetical  school,  as  successor  to  Clement5.  Until  215  or  216 
he  worked  on  at  this  calling,  a  tireless  and  influential  man.  So  far 
as  we  know  his  teaching  was  at  this  time  uninterrupted,  save  for  a 
short  time  by  journeys  to  Rome  and  to  Arabia  6.  It  was  during  these 
years  that  ascetic  zeal,  roused  by  meditation  on  Mt.  xix,  12,  moved 
him  to  emasculate  himself7.  To  gain  leisure  for  his  own  studies  he 
took  in  as  an  associate  teacher  his  former  disciple  Heraclas.  He  retain 
ed,  however,  the  direction  of  the  more  advanced  pupils8.  Origen 
had  probably  reached  his  twenty-fifth  year  when  he  began  to  attend 
the  lectures  of  Ammonius  Saccas,  the  famous  founder  of  Neoplatonism  9 ; 
at  the  same  time  his  zeal  for  biblical  studies  urged  him  to  acquire  a 
knowledge  of  Hebrew 10.  To  this  period  also  belong  his  first  writings. 
The  Alexandrine  massacre  perpetrated  by  Caracalla  in  215  or  216, 
was  the  cause  of  Origen' s  flight  to  Palestine.  Here  Alexander,  bishop 
of  Jerusalem,  and  Theoctistus,  bishop  of  Csesarea,  received  him  most 
honourably,  and,  though  he  was  yet  a  layman,  induced  him  to  preach 
in  their  churches.  Demetrius  of  Alexandria  was  dissatisfied  with  their 
conduct,  and  requested  Origen  to  return  without  delay.  The  latter 
obeyed  and  once  more  took  up  his  calling  as  teacher  and  writer11. 
Seven  skilled  amanuenses  were  placed  at  his  disposal  by  Ambrose, 
a  former  disciple;  they  relieved  one  another  in  taking  down  the 

1  Pamphilus-Etts  ,  in  Phot.,  Bibl.   Cod.    118;  Iher.,  Ep.   33,  3. 

-  E^is.,  Hist,  eccl.,   vi.   2,    7.  3  Ib.,  vi.  6.  4  Ib.,  vi.   2,   5. 

5  Ib.,  vi.  3,   3.  6  Ib.,  vi.    14,    10;    19,    15.  7  Ib.,  vi.   8.          8  Ib.,  vi.    15. 

9  Ib.,  vi.    19.  10  Ib.,  vi.    1 6,    I.  n  Ib.,  vi.    19,    19. 

§    39-       ORIGEN.  137 

master's  dictation.  As  many  copyists  and  some  female  calligraphers 
were  also  occupied  in  his  service,  -  -  in  a  way  this  corps  did  duty  as 
an  Alexandrine  press  for  the  publication  of  his  works1.  About  230  he 
undertook,  with  a  written  recommendation  from  Demetrius2,  a  journey 
to  Athens  in  order  to  confer  with  certain  heretics;  on  the  way  he 
stopped  at  Csesarea  in  Palestine,  where  he  was  ordained  priest3  by  his 
friends  Alexander  and  Theoctistus;  this  without  the  knowledge  of  his 
bishop  and  in  spite  of  his  act  of  self-emasculation,  for  which  step, 
on  his  return,  Demetrius  called  him  to  account.  He  was  deposed 
from  his  office  as  head-master  by  two  synods  held  at  Alexandria 
(231 — 232),  because  of  his  irregular  ordination  and  his  unecclesiastical 
teaching;  he  was  also  expelled  from  the  city  and  degraded  from  the 
priesthood4.  Shortly  afterwards  Demetrius  died  and  Heraclas  was 
chosen  his  successor,  whereupon  Origen  returned  to  Alexandria,  only 
to  be  again  condemned  and  excommunicated  by  Heraclas  for  un 
ecclesiastical  teaching5.  He  now  took  up  his  permanent  residence  at 
Csesarea,  and  established  there  a  theological  school  that  soon  reached 
a  high  degree  of  efficiency  6.  One  of  its  pupils,  St.  Gregory  Thaumat- 
urgus,  has  left  us  an  interesting  account  of  the  method  of  instruction 
and  the  course  of  studies  carried  on  by  Origen  at  Caesarea7.  With 
the  exception  of  a  few  journeys  to  Athens8  and  Arabia9,  in  the 
service  of  the  Church,  he  seems  to  have  lived  on  in  Csesarea,  con 
stantly  busy  as  teacher,  writer  and  preacher,  to  the  time  of  the 
Decian  persecution.  During  that  storm  he  was  cast  into  prison,  pro 
bably  at  Tyre,  and  underwent  many  tortures10.  Not  long  after  he 
died  at  Tyre11,  in  254  or  255,  having  completed  his  sixty-ninth 
year  12. 

P.  D.  Huetius ,  Origenis  in  S.  Scripturas  commentaria,  Rouen,  1668, 
i.  i — 278:  Origeniana  (on  the  life,  doctrine,  and  writings  of  Origen,  three 
books),  often  reprinted,  cf.  Migne ,  PG.,  xvii.  633—1284.  E.  R.  Rede- 
penning,  Origenes.  Eine  Darstellung  seines  Lebens  und  seiner  Lehre,  Bonn, 
1841  —  1846,  2  voll.  E.  Freppel,  Origene,  Paris,  1868.  2  voll. ,  2.  ed. 
l875;  3-  ed.  1886.  Fr.  Bohringer ,  Die  griechischen  Vater  des  3.  und 
4.  Jahrhunderts.  i:  Klemens  und  Origenes  (Die  Kirche  Christi  und  ihre 
Zeugen,  i.  2,  i)  2.  ed.  Zurich,  1869.  B.  F.  Westcott,  Origenes,  in  Dictio 
nary  of  Christ.  Biogr.  (1887),  iv.  96—142.  For  Origen  and  Heraclas  cf. 
J.  Dollinger,  Hippolytus  und  Kallistus,  Ratisbon,  1853,  261  ff.  Preuschen, 
Bibelzitate  bei  Origenes,  in  Zeitschr.  fur  die  neutestamentl.  Wissensch. 
(1903),  iv.  79— 87.  F.  A.  Winter,  Uber  den  Wert  der  direkten  und  in- 
direkten  Uberlieferung  von  Origenes'  Biichern  Contra  Celsum  (Progr.), 
Burghausen,  1903,  i.  D.  Genet ,  L'enseignement  d'Origene  sur  la  priere, 
Cahors  (1903). 

1  Ib.,  vi.   23,   2.  2  Hier.,  De  viris  illustr.,   cc.   54  62. 

a  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,   vi.   8,   4.  4  Phot.,  Bibl.   Cod.   118. 

5  Phot.,  Collect,  et  demonstr.,   c.   9.  6  Ens.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.   30. 

7  Paneg.  in  Orig.  cc.  7 — 15.  8  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.   32,   2. 

9  Ib.,  vi.  33,  37.  10  Ib.,  vi.  39,   5.  11  Ib.,  vii.   i. 

12  Hier.,  De  viris  illustr.,  c.   54. 

138  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

2.  THE  WORKS  OF  ORIGEN.  The  story  told  to  Epiphanius1  about 
the  6000  books  (ftiflJiouQj  written  by  Origen  was  surely  an  exaggeration. 
The  catalogue  of  his  works  given  by  Eusebius  in  his  lost  life  of 
St.  Pamphilus2,  did  not  contain,  if  \ve  believe  St.  Jerome3,  2000  titles, 
and  the  catalogue  made  by  Jerome  himself4,  most  probably  from 
that  of  Eusebius,  does  not  mention  in  its  actual  shape  more  than 
800  titles;  it  is,  however,  very  defective,  and  perhaps  does  not  ex 
hibit  a  continuous  text.  It  is  certain  that  no  ecclesiastical  writer 
of  the  Ante-Nicene  period  equalled  Origen  in  literary  productivity. 
We  possess  to-day  but  a  small  remnant  of  his  works;  and  of  these 
fully  one  half  have  reached  us,  not  in  the  original  Greek,  but  in 
Latin  versions.  Eminent  writers  like  Jerome  and  Rufinus  were  his 
translators,  while  Basil  the  Great  and  Gregory  of  Nazianzus  co-operated 
in  producing  an  elegant  florilegium  of  his  works  known  as  the  Philo- 
calia  or  ('Qprfivou^  <pdo%a)da).  Whole  classes  of  his  writings  perished 
as  the  result  of  the  inimical  edict  of  Justinian  (543),  the  adverse 
judgment  of  the  Fifth  General  Council  (553)>  anc^  the  attitude  of  the 
so-called  Gelasian  Decretal  de  libris  recipiendis  et  non  recipiendis. 
Origen  cultivated  with  special  zeal  the  field  of  biblical  text-criticism 
and  exegesis;  he  wrote  commentaries,  not  once,  but  often  and  in 
various  forms,  on  the  greater  part  of  the  Scriptures.  At  the  same 
time  he  wrote  a  series  of  apologetic,  polemical,  dogmatic  and  asceti- 
cal  works  -  -  in  a  word,  he  outlined  the  entire  field  of  theology. 
He  was  the  first  to  construct  a  philosophico-theological  system,  at  once 
uniform  and  comprehensive.  All  the  theological  movements  and 
schools  belonging  to  the  patristic  period  of  the  Greek  Church  are 
grouped  about  Origen  as  about  a  common  centre  of  union  or  diver 
gency.  He  does  not  belong  to  the  first  rank  of  stylists,  being  not 
only  very  prolix  in  the  treatment  of  his  subject,  but  also  diffuse 
and  pedantic  in  expression;  •  defects  that  are  probably  owing 
to  his  uninterrupted  oral  teaching.  Many  of  his  writings  were  not 
genuine  literary  labors,  but  ephemeral  performances,  dictations5,  or 
oral  discourses  copied  by  his  hearers6. 

Preuschen ,  in  Harnack,  Gesch.  der  altchristl.  Lit.,  i.  332 — 405.  The 
existing  editions  of  St.  Jerome's  works  give  Ep.  33,  only  in  fragmentary 
form  (cf.  Migne,  PL.,  xxii.  446  ff.).  The  catalogues  of  the  works  of  Varro 
and  Origen  were  first  published  by  Fr.  Ritschl  in  1848,  and  again  in  1849. 
It  is  on  his  labors  that  the  attempts  of  Redepenning  and  Pitra  to  re 
construct  Ep.  33  Jerome  are  based.  For  Redepenning ,  see  Zeitschr.  fur 
die  histor.  Theol.  (1851),  xxi.  66 — 79,  and  for  Pitra,  Spicil.  Solesm.  (1855), 
iii.  311  —  317.  With  the  help  of  new  codices  E.  Klostermann,  in  Sitzungs- 
berichte  der  k.  preuft.  Akad.  der  Wissensch. ,  Berlin  1897,  pp.  855 — 870, 
undertook  to  reconstruct  the  catalogue  of  the  works  of  Origen.  The  Greek 
text  of  the  Philocalia  Origenis  of  Basil  the  Great  and  Gregory  of  Nazianzus 

1  Haer.   64,   63.  2  EMS.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.   32,   3.  3  Adv.  Rufin.,  ii.  22. 

4  Ep.  33.  5  Ens.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.  23,   2.  6  Ib.,  vi.  36,    i. 

§    39-      ORIGEN.  139 

was  first  edited  by  y.  Tarinus,  Paris,  1619,  and  recently  by  y.  A.  Robinson, 
Cambridge,  1893.  It  is  also  to  be  found  in  the  editions  of  Origen  (e.  g. 
in  Migne ,  PG.,  xiv.  1309—1316).  The  first  complete  editions  of  Origen, 
those  of  y.  Merlin,  Paris,  1512,  and  G.  Genebrard,  Paris,  1574,  both  of 
which  have  often  been  reprinted,  furnish  only  a  Latin  version,  even  for 
those  writings  the  Greek  text  of  which  has  reached  us.  The  Maurist  sa 
vants,  Charles  de  la  Rue  and  his  nephew  Charles  Vincent  de  la  Rue,  were 
the  first  to  bring  out  a  complete  edition  of  Origen,  with  the  exception  of 
the  fragments  of  the  Hexapla,  Paris,  1733 — 1759,  4  voll.  It  was  reproduced 
in  abbreviated  form  by  Fr.  Oberthilr,  Wiirzburg,  1780 — 1794,  15  voll.  The 
edition  of  C.  H.  E.  Lommatzsch ,  Berlin  1831 — 1848,  25  voll.,  is  a  much 
more  original  and  complete  work.  The  Maurist  edition,  with  numerous 
additions  (Hexapla,  Philosophumena,  Supplementum  ad  Origenis  Exegetica) 
is  reprinted  in  Migne,  PG.,  xi — xvii.  A  new  edition  of  the  works  of 
Origen  is  now  appearing  in  the  Berlin  Collection  of  early  ecclesiastical 
Greek  writers:  Origenes'  Werke  i — ii,  herausgegeben  von  P.  Koetschau, 
Leipzig,  1899.  Cf.  Koetschau,  Kritische  Bemerkungen  zu  meiner  Ausgabe 
von  Origenes'  Exhortatio,  Contra  Celsum,  De  oratione,  Leipzig,  1899, 
also  Koetschau,  in  Zeitschr.  fiir  wissensch.  Theol.  (1900),  xliii.  321 — 377; 
vol.  iii.,  edited  by  E.  Klostermann,  contains  the  homilies  on  the  Prophecy 
of  Jeremiah,  the  commentaries  on  the  Lamentations,  and  the  exposition 
of  the  Book  of  Kings,  Berlin,  1901 ;  vol.  iv.  Origenes'  Johannes-Kommentar, 
edited  by  E.  Prenschen,  Berlin,  1903. 

3.  CRITICAL  WORKS  ON  THE  BIBLE.  In  the  gigantic  enterprise 
known  as  the  Hexapla,  now  lost,  Origen  set  himself  the  task  of 
making  clear  at  a  glance  the  relation  of  the  Septuagint  to  the  original 
Hebrew  text;  he  thereby  hoped  to  establish  a  solid  foundation  for 
his  theological  interpretation  of  Scripture,  and  particularly  for  his 
polemic  against  the  Jews 1.  For  this  purpose  he  copied  in  parallel 
columns,  first  the  Hebrew  text  in  Hebrew  letters,  then  the  Hebrew 
text  in  Greek  letters.  Then  followed  in  four  other  columns  the 
Greek  versions  of  Aquila,  Symmachus,  the  Septuagint,  and  Theo- 
dotion.  In  the  text  of  the  Septuagint  he  marked  with  an  obelus  or 
cancel  the  words,  verses  or  chapters  that  were  lacking  in  the  original 
Hebrew.  The  <  lacunae »  or  gaps  in  the  Septuagint  text  which  were 
indicated  by  an  asterisk  were  filled  up  from  one  of  the  other  versions, 
mostly  from  Theodotion's.  For  some  books  of  the  Old  Testament 
he  added  a  fifth  version,  and  for  the  Psalms  a  fifth,  sixth  and  seventh2. 
From  its  six  columns  the  work  was  known  as  Hexapla  (kqanXa,  sc 
fpdp.p.ara)  or  six-fold  writing.  This  great  enterprise,  begun  at  Alex 
andria,  is  said  to  have  been  finished  at  Tyre;  therefore,  towards  the 
end  of  his  life3.  Very  probably  no  second  copy  was  ever  made 
of  the  entire  work.  The  fifth  column  (Hexaplar  recension  of  the 
Septuagint)  was  often  copied,  and  we  still  possess  some  fragments 
of  its  Greek  text.  The  greater  part  of  it  has  also  reached  us  in  a 
Syriac  version,  slavishly  literal,  made  in  616  or  617,  by  Paul,  bishop 

1  Orig.,   Comm.  in   Matth.,   xv.    14. 

2  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.    16;  Hicr.,  Comm.  in  Titum  ad  iii.  9. 

3  Epiph.,  De  mens.  et  pond.,  c.    18. 


of  Telia.  Origen  prepared  also  a  work  known  as  the  Tetrapla  *, 
a  collation  of  the  four  principal  Greek  versions  of  the  Old  Testa 
ment,  those  namely  of  Aquila,  Symmachus,  the  Septuagint,  and 
Theodotion.  It  has  utterly  perished.  There  is  no  foundation  for  the 
opinion  of  Hug  that  Origen  undertook  a  revision  or  recension  of  the 
text  of  the  New  Testament. 

The  fragments  of  the  Hexapla  were  collected  by  B.  de  Montfaucon, 
Paris,  1713,  2  voll.  (cf.  Migne,  PG.,  xv — xvi)  and  Fr.  Field,  Oxford,  1867 
to  1875,  2  voll.  More  important  than  the  appendices  of  J.  B.  Pitra  (1884) 
and  £.  Klostermami  (1894)  is  the  yet  unpublished  discovery  by  G.  Mercati 
of  a  Hexapla  fragment  of  the  Psalms.  G.  Mercati,  Un  palinsesto  ambro- 
siano  dei  Salmi  Esapli,  Turin,  1896,  in  Atti  della  R.  Accademia  delle  Scienze 
di  Torino.  The  same  writer  has  also  made  important  contributions  to  the 
history  and  text  of  the  Hexapla,  in  Note  di  letteratura  biblica  e  cristiana 
antica  (Studi  e  Testi  v),  Rome,  1901,  i  (pp.  i — 7):  Una  congettura  sopra 
il  libro  del  Giusto ;  ii  (pp.  8 — 16):  Sul  testo  ebraico  del  Salmo  140  (141); 
iii  (pp.  17  —  27):  Sul  canone  biblico  di  S.  Epifanio;  iv  (pp.  28—46):  D'alcuni 
frammenti  esaplari  sulla  va  e  via  edizione  greca  della  Bibbia  (there  is  laid 
claim,  for  the  Hexapla,  by  interior  and  exterior  reasons,  to  some  few  lines 
of  this  iv.  part ;  they  are  entitled  zspl  TTJ?  e'  xal  r  Ixooaewc  aAXaK :  Migne, 
PG.,  Ixxxiv.  29);  v  (pp.  47 — 60):  Sul  testo  et  sul  senso  di  Eusebio,  Hist, 
eccl.,  vi.  1 6.  J.  Hallvy,  L'origine  de  la  transcription  du  texte  hebreu  en 
caracteres  grecs  dans  les  Hexaples  d'Origene,  in  Journal  asiatique,  ser.  ix 
(1901),  xviii.  335 — 341.  Hale'vy  was  opposed  by  J.  B.  Chabot,  ib.  349 — 350; 
and  replied  ib.  (1902),  xix.  134  — 136  140 — 144;  C.  Taylor,  Hebrew-Greek 
Cairo  Genizah  Palimpsests  from  the  Taylor-Schechter  collection,  including  a 
fragment  of  the  22.  Psalm  according  to  Origen's  Hexapla,  Cambridge,  1901. 
The  Syriac  version  is  of  very  great  importance  for  the  reconstruction  of  the 
Hexaplar  text  of  the  Septuagint ;  the  second  half  of  a  complete  copy  of  that 
version  was  published  in  photolithograph  by  A.  M.  Ceriani  (Monum.  sacra  et 
prof.  ex.  codd.  praes.  bibl.  Ambrosianae,  Milan,  1874,  vii.);  the  other  extant 
fragments  were  published  by  P.  de  Lagarde,  Bibl.  Syriaca,  Gottingen,  1892, 
pp.  i — 256.  In  general,  for  the  history  of  the  Hexapla,  see  the  intro 
ductions  to  the  Old  Testament.  The  theory  of  Hug  is  refuted  by  Hund- 
hausen,  in  Wetzer  und  Welte,  Kirchenlexikon,  2.  ed.,  ii.  (1883),  700. 

4.  BIBLICO-EXEGETICAL  WRITINGS.  His  exegetical  writings  may 
be  divided  into  three  groups:  scholia,  homilies  and  commentaries. 
The  scholia  (a%bha.  or  ay/jtstaHretQJ,  called  excerpta  by  Jerome  and 
Rufinus,  are  brief  notes  on  the  more  difficult  passages  or  the  more 
obscure  words.  The  homilies  (ofidiat,  homiliae,  tractatus),  are  ser 
mons  on  select  chapters  of  the  Bible.  The  commentaries  (TU/JLOI,  volu- 
mina,  libri)  are  detailed  and  often  exhaustive  studies,  illustrative  of 
the  biblical  text.  Unlike  the  more  popular  homilies,  they  contain 
philosophico-theological  disquisitions,  by  means  of  which  the  more 
intelligent  readers  may  discover  the  deeper  truths  of  Scripture  2.  Origen 
wrote  scholia  on  Exodus  and  Leviticus3,  also  on  Numbers4.  Some 

1  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.    16,   44;  Epiph.,  De  mens.   et  pond.,  c.   19. 

2  Hier.,  Interpr.  horn.   Grig,  in  Ezech.,  prol.  3  Cf.   Catal.  in  Hier.    Ep.   33. 
4  Rufin.,  Interpr.  horn.   Grig,  in  Num.,  prol. 

§    39-      ORIGEN.  141 

fragments  of  these  may  yet  be  discovered  in  the  Catenae.  Some 
fragments  of  the  scholia  on  Exodus  are  met  with  in  the  Philocalia 
(c.  27)  !.  His  scholia  on  Numbers  were,  partially  at  least,  included 
by  Rufinus  in  his  translation  of  the  homilies  of  Origen  on  Numbers2. 
Origen  also  wrote  homilies  on  all  the  books  of  the  Pentateuch3, 
after  244  on  the  first  four  books,  on  Deuteronomy  about  233.  Of 
their  Greek  text  only  fragments  remain4,  though  they  might  be 
considerably  increased  by  a  more  careful  search  in  the  Catenae.  In 
the  meantime  there  are  extant  in  the  version  or  paraphrase  of  Ru 
finus  seventeen  homilies  on  Genesis5,  thirteen  on  Exodus6,  sixteen  on 
Leviticus7,  twenty-eight  on  Numbers8.  It  was  also  the  intention  of 
Rufinus  to  translate  those  on  Deuteronomy,  of  which  the  catalogue 
numbers  thirteen9.  Beside  the  seventeen  homilies  on  Genesis  the 
catalogue  of  his  works  mentions  mysticarum  homiliamm  libros  2, 
which  also  dealt  with  Genesis10,  but  of  which  \ve  have  no  more 
exact  knowledge.  It  is  possible  that  the  homily  on  Melchisedech 
quoted  by  Jerome  n  was  one  of  them.  Finally  he  composed  a  com 
mentary  on  Genesis,  probably  in  thirteen  books,  the  first  eight  of 
which  were  written  at  Alexandria,  the  others  at  Csesarea  12.  He  did 
not  get  beyond  Gen.  v.  I  13.  Only  a  few  fragments  of  it  are  extant  14, 
mostly  citations  in  the  Philocalia  (c.  14  23)  from  the  third  book. 
It  seems  that  on  the  historical  books  of  the  Old  Testament  Origen 
delivered  or  wrote  only  homilies.  Rufinus  translated  15  twenty-six 
homilies  on  Josue  that  \vere  probably  delivered  during  the  persecution 
of  Decius  16.  A  Greek  fragment  of  the  twentieth  homily  is  found  in 
the  Philocalia  (c.  12);  in  1894,  Klostermann  discovered  notable  re 
mnants  of  the  first  four  and  the  last  eleven  in  the  Octateuch-Catena 
of  the  sophist  Procopius  of  Gaza.  There  exists  a  Latin  version 
made  by  Rufinus17  of  nine  homilies  on  Judges18  mentioned  about 
235  by  Origen  himself.  Between  these  nine  and  the  four  on  the 
first  book  of  Kings  the  Catalogue  places  eight  homilies  De  pascha, 
a  title  that  seems  enigmatic  if  only  by  reason  of  its  position.  Two 
homilies  on  the  first  book  of  Kings  have  been  preserved,  one  on 
I  Kings  i.  —  ii.,  in  a  Latin  version  of  unknown  origin19,  the  other 
in  the  original  Greek,  on  I  Kings  xxviii.,  or  concerning  the  witch 
of  Endor  (nepl  TYJQ  IfraffTptfjtuftoui)20.  Cassiodorus  mentions21  a  homily 

1  Migne,  PG.,  xii.   263  —  282.  2  Rufin.,  1.  c. 

3  Orig.,  Horn.   8  in  Luc.  4  Migne,  PG.,  xii.    161  —  168   353  —  354,  al. 

5  Ib.,   xii.    145—162.  6  lb,,   xii.   297—396. 

7  Ib.,   xii.   405  —  574.  8  Ib.,  xii.   583-806.  °  Rufin.,  1.   c. 

10  Rufin,,  Apol.,  ii.   20.  u  Ep.   73,   2.  12  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.   24,   2. 

13  Orig.,  Contra  Gels.,  vi.   49;   cf.   Hier.,  Ep.   36,   9. 

14  Migne,  PG.,   xii.  45—92.  15  Ib.,   xii.   823—948. 

16  Horn,  in  los.,  ix.   10.  17  Migne,  PG.,  xii.  951  —  990. 

18  Orig.,  Prolog,  in  Cant.,   in  Migne,  PG.,   xiii.    78.  19  Ib.,   xii.   995—1012. 

20  Ib.,  xii.    1011  —  1028.  2I  Inst.,  i.   2. 

142  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

on  2  Kings,  one  on  the  second  book  of  Paralipomenon 1 ,  a  homily 
respectively  on  the  first  and  second  book  of  Esdras;  all  translated2 
by  his  friend  Bellator.  The  twenty-two  homilies  on  Job  found  a 
Latin  epitomator  in  Hilary  of  Poitiers3,  but  of  this  epitome  only 
two  small  fragments  remain4,  and  remnants  of  the  Greek  text  seem 
to  be  still  found  in  the  Catenae.  -  -  Origen  treated  the  Psalms  in 
all  three  of  the  above-mentioned  ways5.  The  Catalogue  mentions 
scholia  on  Psalms  I  — 15,  and  on  the  whole  Psalter,  also  homilies 
on  various  Psalms.  In  all  he  wrote  120  homilies  on  63  Psalms.  He 
also  wrote  forty-six  books  of  commentaries  on  forty-one  Psalms. 
Elsewhere  Jerome  speaks6  of  a  commentary  on  Ps.  126,  and  a 
tractatus  Phe  liter ae ,  probably  an  explanation  of  the  verses  of 
Psalm  118  that  began  with  the  Hebrew  letter  D.  Eusebius  mentions 
an  explanation  of  Psalms  I — 25  written  when  Origen  was  still  resi 
dent  in  Alexandria 7.  Apart  from  an  endless  lot  of  fragments  in 
the  Catenae  there  is  extant  but  very  little  of  the  Greek  text  of  his 
various  writings  on  the  Psalms.  There  exist,  however,  in  a  Latin 
version  of  Rufinus,  nine  homilies,  five  on  Psalm  36,  two  on  Psalm  37, 
and  two  on  Psalm  38;  they  date  approximately  from  240— 245 8. 
In  his  own  commentary  on  the  Psalms,  Hilary  of  Poitiers  made  an  ex 
tensive  use  of  the  labors  of  Origen9.  In  his  above-mentioned  Cata 
logue  Jerome  sets  down  seven  homilies  on  Proverbs,  a  commentary 
in  three  books,  a  De  proverbiorum  quibusdam  quaestionibus  librum  I ; 
fragments  of  which  have  reached  us  almost  only  through  the  Ca 
tenae.  It  seems  that  the  scholia  and  eight  homilies  on  Ecclesiastes 
are  altogether  lost.  An  elegant  version  of  St.  Jerome 10  has  preserved 
the  two  homilies  on  the  Canticle  of  canticles.  In  the  Philocalia 
(c.  7,  i)  has  been  saved  a  fragment,  taken  from  some  otherwise 
unknown  youthful  work  of  Origen  on  the  Canticle  of  canticles11. 
Besides  some  Greek  Catenae-fragments  of  his  commentary  on  the 
latter  book,  we  possess  the  prologue,  the  first  three  books  and  a 
part  of  the  fourth ,  in  a  Latin  version  by  Rufinus 12.  This  com 
mentary  was  originally  in  ten  books;  five  of  them  he  wrote  at 
Athens  about  240,  and  the  others  shortly  after,  at  Caesarea 13.  Of 
these  commentaries  Jerome  said 14 :  Origenes ,  cum  in  celeris  libris 
omnes  vicerit,  in  Cantico  canticorum  ipse  se  vicit.  On  the  prophet 
Isaias  he  also  wrote  scholia,  homilies  and  a  commentary15.  The 
homilies  were  apparently  twenty-five  in  number16;  nine  of  them 

1  Cass.,  Inst.,  i.   2.  2  Ib.,   i.   6. 

3  Hier.,  Ep.   61,   2;   De  viris  illust.,   c.    100.  4   Migne,  PL.,  x.   723 — 724. 

5  Hier.,  Comm.   in  Psalm.,  prol.  G  Ep.   34,    I. 

7  Eus.,  Hist,   eccl,  vi.   24,   2.  8  Migne,  PG.,  xii.   1319  —  1410. 

u  Hier.,  Ep.  61,   2;  De  viris  illustr.,   c.    100.  10  Migne,  PG.,  xiii.   35—58. 

11  Ib.,  xiii.  35—66.  '2  Ib.,  xiii.,  61  —  198. 

13  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.   32,   2.  u  Interpr.  horn.   Orig.  in  Cant.,  prol. 

15  Hier.,   Comm.  in  Is.,  prol.  1G  Ib. 

§    39-       ORIGEX.  143 

have  reached  us  in  a  Latin  translation  by  Jerome,  who  purged  them 
of  heterodox  sentiments  1.  The  commentary  on  Isaias  was  composed 
at  Csesarea  about  235,  and  dealt  in  thirty  books  with  the  text  to 
Is.  xxx.  5  2.  A  few  small  fragments  of  it  are  found  in  the  text  of 
Pamphilus3.  Two  books  on  the  vision  in  Isaias  xxx.  6  ff.  were  held 
by  Jerome  to  be  spurious4.  -  -  An  Escurial  codex  of  the  twelfth 
century  has  preserved  for  us  the  Greek  text  of  nineteen  homilies 
on  Jeremias5,  delivered  by  Origen  after  244;  also  fourteen,  in  a 
Latin  version  by  Jerome6.  Twelve  of  the  Latin  homilies  (i  24 
8 — 14  1 6  17)  are  found  also  in  Greek.  The  other  two  (20  21)  are 
wanting  in  the  Greek  text  of  the  manuscript.  Cassiodorus  was  ac 
quainted  with  forty-five  homilies  on  Jeremias7,  and  the  Philocalia 
contains  (cc.  I  10)  two  fragments  of  the  thirty-ninth  homily  on  that 
prophet8.  -  -  Origen  composed  at  Alexandria  a  commentary  on  the 
Lamentations,  five  books  of  which  were  known  to  Eusebius 9.  Maxi- 
mus  Confessor  cites  a  tenth  book  of  the  same 10,  but  the  only  frag 
ments  saved  are  apparently  those  in  the  Catenae.  Of  the  homilies 
on  Jeremias,  delivered  after  those  on  Ezechiel ]  *,  fourteen  have  reached 
us  in  a  Latin  version  of  Jerome,  who  removed  from  them  the 
doctrinal  errors12.  Origen  also  began  at  Csesarea  and  finished  at 
Athens,  about  240,  a  commentary  on  Ezechiel  in  twenty-five  books13. 
A  fragment  of  the  20.  book  is  met  with  in  the  Philocalia  (c.  n)14. 
The  ancients  say  nothing  of  any  work  on  Daniel.  After  244,  Origen 
wrote  at  Csesarea  a  commentary  on  the  twelve  minor  prophets,  of 
which  Eusebius15  could  find  «only  twenty-five  books »  16.  The  Cata 
logue  of  Origen' s  works  mentions  commentaries  on  all  the  minor 
prophets,  with  the  exception  of  Abdias.  The  only  known  fragment 
preserved  is  from  the  commentary  on  Osee  in  Philocalia  c.  8  17.  He 
wrote  a  special  opuscule  on  the  pretended  mystic  sense  of  the 
word  «Ephraim»  in  Osee18.  The  Gospel  of  St.  Matthew  was  illu 
strated  by  Origen  with  scholia,  twenty-five  homilies  and  a  commen 
tary  in  twenty-five  books  19.  The  commentary  was  composed  at  Cae- 
sarea20  after  244.  The  original  Greek  is  still  extant  in  part  (books  10  to 
17,  on  Mt.  xiii.  36  to  xxii.  33) 21.  A  still  larger  portion  (Mt.  xvi.  13 

1  Migne,  PG.,  xiii.   219 — 254.  2  E^^s.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.   32,    i. 

3  Apol.  pro  Orig.,   cc.   5    7;   Migne,   PG.,  xiii.   217 — 220. 

4  Hier.,  Comm.   in  Is.,   prol.  5  Migne,  PG.,  xiii.   256 — 526. 
6  Ib.,  xiii.  255  —  542.              7     Inst.,  i.   3. 

3  Migne,  PG.,  xiii.   541  —  544.  9  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.   24,   2. 

10  Schol.  in  Dion.  Areop.,  in  Migne,  PG.,   iv.   549. 

11  Orig.,  Horn,  in   Kzech.,   xi.   5.  12  Migne,  PG.,  xiii.   665—768. 

ia  Ens.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.   32,    1—2.  u  Migne,  PG.,  xiii.  663 — 666. 

15  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.   36,   2.  1G  /Her.,  De  viris  ill.,  c.   75. 

17  Migne,  PG.,  xiii.   825  —  828.  l8  Hier.,    Comm.  in   Hos.,   prol. 

19  Hier.,  Comm.  in  Matth.,  prol.  20  Etts.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.   36,   2. 

-1  Migne,  PG.,  xiii.  835 — 1600. 

144  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

to  xxvii.  63)  exists  in  an  ancient  anonymous  Latin  recension  *. 
There  are  also  a  few  scattered  fragments  of  the  commentary  on 
St.  Matthew2.  Nothing  is  known  of  Origen's  labors  on  St.  Mark. 
Jerome  translated  thirty-nine  homilies  on  St.  Luke,  that  may  have 
been  delivered  shortly  after  233  3.  The  Catenae  have  preserved 
numerous  fragments  of  these  homilies,  that  apparently  numbered 
more  than  thirty-nine4.  He  wrote  also  a  commentary  on  St.  Luke 
in  five  books,  but  it  is  lost  with  the  exception  of  some  Catenae- 
fragments5.  -  -  For  St.  John  the  Catalogue  enumerates  scholia  and 
a  commentary  in  thirty-two  books6;  of  this  commentary,  besides 
small  fragments  of  various  books ,  the  Greek  text  of  the  following 
books  I  2  6  10  13  19  (incomplete)  20  28  32  has  been  saved  for 
us  by  a  Munich  Codex  of  the  twelfth  or  thirteenth  century7.  The 
first  five  books  were  written  at  Alexandria,  it  is  thought  before  the 
year  228 8;  but  in  the  time  of  the  persecution  of  Maximinus  (235 
to  238)  the  work  was  still  unfinished9;  very  probably  it  originally 
consisted  of  more  than  thirty-two  books  10.  -  -  Of  the  seventeen 
homilies  on  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  we  know  only  one  fragment 
of  the  fourth  preserved  in  the  Philocalia  (c.  7,  2) n.  We  possess 
the  fifteen  books  of  the  commentary  (written  after  244)  on  the  Epistle 
to  the  Romans,  but  in  a  Latin  recension  in  ten  books,  made  by 
Rufinus 12.  His  copy  of  the  original  Greek  of  this  commentary  con 
tained  a  text  both  incomplete  and  corrupt;  moreover  it  was  on  a 
Latin  version  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  that  Rufinus  based  his 
exposition.  The  Catalogue  mentions  eleven  homilies  on  the  Second 
Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  but  probably  we  ought  to  read  the  First 
Epistle13;  there  are  Catenae -fragments  of  homilies  on  the  latter. 
On  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  he  wrote  scholia u ,  seven  homilies 
and  five  books  of  a  commentary ;  fragments  of  the  first  book  of  the 
commentary  are  quoted  by  Pamphilus15.  In  his  commentary  on 
this  Epistle /St.  Jerome  follows  Origen  closely16.  He  made  a  still 
more  copious  use  of  the  text  of  Origen  in  his  commentary  on  the 
Epistle  to  the  Ephesians 17.  Origen  had  written  a  commentary  on  the 
latter  in  three  books;  Greek  fragments,  of  which  some  are  lengthy, 

1  Migne,  PG.,   xiii.   993—  1800.  2  Ib.,   xiii.   829 — 834. 

3  Ib.,  xiii.    1799  — 1902. 

4  Orig.,   Comm.   in  Matth.,   xiii.  29 ;   Comm.   in  Io.,  xxxii.   2. 

5  Hier.,  Interpr.   horn.   Orig.   in  Luc.,   prol.   --   The  Catalogue  mentions    15   books. 

6  Hier.,  Interpr.  horn.  Orig.   in  Luc.,   prol.  —  In  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.  24,    I,   for  22 
it  should  be  read   32. 

7  Migne,  PG.,  xiv.   21 —  830.  8  Comm.   in  Io.   i.   4;  vi.    I. 

9  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.   28.  10  Orig.,  Comm.  in  Matth.  ser.,   c.    133. 

11  Migne,  PG.,  xiv.  829—832.  12  Ib.,  xiv.   831—    1294. 

13  Hier,  Ep.  49,   3. 

14  Cf.  the  Catalogue,  and  Hier.,  Comm.  in  Gal.,  prol.;  Ep.    112,   4. 

15  Apol.  pro  Orig.,  c.   5;  Migne,  PG.,  xiv.    1293—1298.  l6  Hier.,  11.  cc. 
17  Hier.,  Comm.  in  Epiph.,  prol.;  Adv.  Rufin.,   i.    16,   21;   iii.    11. 

§    39-      ORIGEN.  145 

are  met  with  in  the  Catenae,  also  a  Latin  fragment  in  Jerome  *.  Ac 
cording  to  the  Catalogue  he  wrote  a  commentary  in  one  book  on 
the  Epistle  to  the  Philippians,  and  one  in  two  books  on  the  Epistle 
to  the  Colossians,  while  Pamphilus2  quotes  a  passage  from  a  third 
book  of  that  commentary.  Similarly,  the  Catalogue  mentions  a  com 
mentary  in  three  books  on  the  first  Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians,  a 
long  fragment  of  which  is  quoted  by  St.  Jerome3.  He  also  wrote 
a  commentary  in  one  book  on  the  Second  Epistle  to  Thessalonians. 
The  same  Catalogue  indicates  two  homilies  on  Epist.  ad  Thess.  without 
distinguishing  to  which  one  they  belong.  He  wrote  a  homily  and 
a  commentary  in  one  book  on  the  Epistle  to  Titus;  Pamphilus4 
cites  five  fragments  from  it.  The  same  writer  has  also  preserved5  a 
fragment  of  a  commentary  in  one  book  on  the  Epistle  to  Philemon. 
It  would  seem  that  the  only  remnants  of  the  eight  homilies  on  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  are  two  quotations  in  Eusebius6.  Though, 
strangely  enough,  the  Catalogue  says  nothing  of  a  commentary  on 
Hebrews;  Pamphilus7  quotes  four  passages  from  it.  There  is  no 
indication  in  the  Catalogue  of  any  treatises  on  the  Catholic  Epistles 
or  on  the  Apocalypse.  It  is  certain,  however,  that  Origen  intended 
to  write  a  commentary  on  the  latter8. 

A  new  edition  of  the  exegetical  works  of  Origen  will  need  to  sift 
with  more  care  than  has  hitherto  been  used  the  Catenae-fragments  fre 
quently  referred  to  in  the  preceding  pages.  There  must  be  a  sifting  of 
the  genuine  from  the  spurious;  as  far  as  possible,  each  genuine  passage 
must  also  be  traced  back  to  its  proper  source.  Many  such  fragments  are 
found  in  the  De  la  Rue  edition  (Migne,  xii — xiii,  passim).  Additions  were 
made  by  Gallandi  and  Mai  (Migne,  xvii.  9 — 370:  Supplementum  ad  Ori- 
genis  Exegetica).  In  his  Analecta  sacra,  ii.  335 — 345  349—483;  iii.  i  to 
588,  Pitra  published  recently  from  Vatican  Catenae  lengthy  fragments  on 
the  Old  Testament  (Octateuch,  Job,  Psalms,  Proverbs,  the  Prophets).  Cf 
Fr.  Loofs  in  Theol.  Literaturzeitung  1884,  pp.  459 — 463.  For  fragments 
of  New  Testament  Catenae  see  especially  J.  A.  Cramer,  Catenae  graeco- 
rum  Patrum  in  Nov.  Test.,  Oxford,  1838  —  1844,  8  voll.  On  the  Catenae 
in  general  cf.  Prcuschen  in  Harnack ,  1.  c.,  403 — 405  835 — 842.  On  the 
extracts  from  the  homilies  on  Josue  found  in  Procopius  of  Gaza  see 
E.  Klostermann  in  Texte  und  Untersuchungen ,  Leipzig,  1894,  xii.  3,  2. 
The  homily  on  i  Kings,  c.  xxviii  (the  Witch  of  Endor) ,  was  re-edited 
(1886)  with  the  reply  of  St.  Eustathius  of  Antioch  by  A.  Jakn,  1.  c.,  ii.  4. 
Origen's  commentary  on  the  Canticle  of  canticles  is  dealt  with  by  W.  Riedel, 
Die  Auslegung  des  Hohenliedes,  Leipzig,  1898,  pp.  52  --66.  The  text- 
tradition  of  the  homilies  on  Jeremias  is  illustrated  by  E.  Klostermann,  in 
Texte  und  Untersuchungen  (1897),  xvi.,  new  series,  i.  3.  For  the  ideas  of 
Origen  on  the  Book  of  Daniel  as  gathered  from  writings,  extant  or  lost, 
in  the  commentary  of  St.  Jerome  on  Daniel,  cf.  J.  Lataix,  Le  commen- 

1  Hier.,   Adv.   Rufin.,   i.   28.  z  Apol.  pro   Orig.,   c.   5. 

3  Ep.    119,  9  — 10 ;   cf.   Orig.,  Contra  Gels.,  ii.   65. 

4  Apol.  pro  Orig.,   cc.    19.  5  lb.,   c.   6. 

6  Hist,   eccl.,   vi.   25,    11  —  14.  7  Apol.   pro   Orig.,   cc.   3   5. 

3  Comm.  in  Matth.,   ser.   c.   49. 

146  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

taire  de  St.  Jerome  stir  Daniel  ii,  opinions  d'Origene ,  in  Revue  d'hist. 
et  de  litterat.  religieuses  (1897),  ii.  268—275.  On  the  Greek  fragments  of 
the  homilies  on  St.  Luke  edited  by  A.  Thenn  in  Zeitschr.  fur  wissensch. 
Theol.  (1891  —  1893)  cf.  y.  Sickenberger ,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1896), 
Ixxviii.  T  88 — 191.  For  a  new  edition  of  the  remnants  of  the  commentary 
on  St.  John  we  are  indebted  to  A.  E.  Brooke,  Cambridge,  1896,  2  voll. 
y.  A.  P.  Gregg,  The  commentary  of  Origen  upon  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephe- 
sians,  in  Journal  of  Theological  Studies  (1902),  iii.  233 — 234  398—420 
554 — 576,  began  a  republication  of  that  commentary;  its  fragments  had 
already  been  collected  by  Cramer  from  the  Catenae.  For  the  Tractatus 
Origenis  de  libris  SS.  Scripturarum  edited  by  Batiffol  and  Wilmart  in 
1900  cf.  §  55,  4.  Concerning  the  canon  of  the  Old  Testament  in  Origen 
see  y.  P.  van  Kasteren,  in  Revue  biblique  (1901),  x.  412 — 423.  E.  Preu- 
schen,  Bibelzitate  bei  Origenes,  in  Zeitschr.  fiir  die  neutestamentl.  Wissensch. 
(1903),  iv.  79 — 87.  The  general  character  of  his  homilies  is  discussed 
by  Rcdepenning,  Origenes,  ii.  212 — 261.  Cf.  Westcott,  in  Diet,  of  Christ. 
Biogr.,  iv.  104 — 118,  where  the  reader  will  find  a  good  index  of  the  con 
tents  of  the  homilies  and  commentaries.  There  is  a  German  version  ot 
some  homilies  by  E.  A.  Winter,  in  G.  Leonhardi,  Die  Predigt  in  der  Kirche, 
Leipzig,  1893,  xxii.  C.  yenkins,  The  Origen-Citations  in  Cramer's  Catena 
on  i  Corinthians,  Journal  of  Theological  Studies  (1904),  vi.  113 — 116. 

cipally  the  mystic  sense  of  the  Scriptures  that  Origen  seeks  to  ex 
hibit  in  his  exegetical  works;  the  historical  sense  he  almost  entirely 
neglects1.  Guided  by  the  analogy  of  Plato's  trichotomous  division 
of  man  he  felt  obliged  to  distinguish  in  the  Scriptures  a  triple  sense : 
somatic,  psychic  and  pneumatic2.  Practically,  his  theory  would  not 
work.  And  so,  in  view  of  the  division  of  the  Cosmos  into  flesh  and 
spirit  (alfffhjTa,  and  vor^d),  he  was  wont  to  distinguish  in  the  Scrip 
tures  a  carnal  and  a  spiritual  sense3.  His  fatal  error  was  the  total 
abandonment  or  denial ,  in  many  places,  of  the  literal  or  historical 
sense,  in  favor  of  the  spiritual  sense4.  There  are,  he  maintained, 
in  the  Holy  Scriptures  repulsive  and  scandalous  and  impossible  sayings 
fffxdvda/M  xai  Ttpoffxo/jifJiaTa  xac  douvaraj ,  the  carnal  interpretation 
of  which  is  intolerable;  when  interpreted  spiritually,  however,  they 
are  seen  to  be  only  the  integuments  of  deep  mysteries5.  Even 
the  Evangelists  frequently  set  forth  pneumatic  truth  in  somatic  false 
hood  6  (ffO)£ofJl£VOU  "OAAV.XIQ  T0[)  dtyftoUQ  TTVSUfJtaTtXOtJ  SV  TCO  (TCOfJ.V.TCXW, 

WQ  (iv  sl'noc.  TtQ,  ^z'jdzi).  It  must  be  admitted  that  Origen  pos 
sessed  a  certain  knowledge  of  Hebrew,  though  it  did  not  excede 
very  modest  limits7.  For  the  comparison  of  the  Septuagint  and 
the  original  Hebrew  he  was  always  dependent  upon  the  authority 
of  others.  Indeed,  the  dominant  idea  of  the  Hexapla  is  their  apo- 

1  Hier.,   Comm.   in  Mai.,  prol. 

2  De  princ.,  iv  ,    ii  ;  Horn,  in  Levit.,  v.    I    5. 

3  Horn,  in  Levit.,  i.    I  ;   Comm.  in  Jo.,  x.  4. 

4  Horn,  in   Gen.  ii.  6;  De  princ,  iv.    12.  5  De  princ.,   iv.    15. 

6  Comm.   in  Jo.,  x.  4.  7  Horn,  in   Gen.,  xii.   4;   Horn,  in  Num.^  xiv.    I, 

§    39-      ORIGEN.  147 

logetic  usefulness,  rather  than  the  gain  of  textual  criticism.  He  was 
all  the  less  inclined  to  entertain  the  idea  of  a  critical  study  of  the 
Septuagint  translation  on  the  basis  of  the  original  Hebrew,  since 
he  was  persuaded  that  the  text  of  the  Septuagint  was  divinely  in 
spired  l.  Its  obscurities  and  solecisms  are  to  him  signs  of  special  my 
steries.  When  he  detects  a  variation  from  the  Hebrew  text  or  from 
New  Testament  quotations,  he  prefers  to  admit  falsification  of  the 
original  Hebrew  by  the  Jews ,  or  a  corruption  of  the  manuscripts 
of  the  New  Testament,  rather  than  to  acknowledge  an  error  on  the 
part  of  the  Septuagint. 

Redepenning,  Origenes,  i.  232 — 324;  cf.  ii.  156 — 188.  A.  Zollig ,  Die 
Inspirationslehre  des  Origenes.  Ein  Beitrag  zur  Dogmengeschichte  (Straft- 
burger  theolog.  Studien,  v.  i),  Freiburg  i.  Br.  1902. 

6.  WORKS  AGAINST  PAGANS  AND  JEWS.  -  -  An  apologetic  work 
in  eight  books  against  Celsus  (xara  Kilao'j,  contra  Celsunt)  has  been 
preserved  in  a  Vatican  codex  of  the  thirteenth  century2;  the  Philo- 
calia  has  also  preserved  lengthy  fragments  of  it,  equal  in  size  to 
about  one  seventh  of  the  whole  work.  Celsus,  a  Platonic  eclectic, 
had  published  about  178  a  work  entitled  « Veracious  Demonstration* 
(dtyttyQ  AofOQJ.  From  Origen's  refutation  of  the  work  we  gather 
that  in  the  first  part  the  author  attacked  Christianity,  in  the  person 
of  a  Jew  who  took  his  stand  upon  the  racial  faith  in  the  Messias; 
in  the  second  part  he  undertook  to  show  the  hopelessness  of  the 
Messianic  idea  and  thereby  to  overthrow  the  cornerstone  of  Christia 
nity;  in  the  third  part  he  assailed  certain  specific  Christian  doctrines, 
while  in  the  fourth  he  defended  the  state-religion  of  the  heathens. 
As  is  stated  in  the  preface,  the  refutation  of  this  work  was  written 
by  Origen  at  the  request  of  his  friend  Ambrose,  during  the  reign 
of  Philippus  Arabs3,  probably  in  248,  and  follows  sentence  by  sen 
tence  the  text  of  the  » Demonstration ».  It  falls,  therefore,  pre 
scinding  from  the  long  introduction  (i.  I — 27),  into  four  parts  that 
correspond  with  the  division  of  the  work  of  Celsus  (i.  28  to  ii.  79; 
iii  to  v;  vi.  i  to  vii.  61;  vii.  62  to  viii.  71).  Both  in  ancient4  and 
modern  times,  it  has  been  pronounced  the  most  perfect  apologetic  work 
of  the  primitive  Church.  At  least,  Origen  has  nowhere  exhibited 
greater  learning.  His  calm  attitude  and  dignified  diction,  the  natural 
outcome  of  a  sense  of  intellectual  superiority,  affects  the  reader  favo 
rably  when  compared  with  the  passionate  invectives  of  his  opponent. 
In  this  same  work5  Origen  refers  to  a  discussion  with  some  learned 
Jews  in  presence  of  several  legal  arbiters.  It  was  probably  reduced 
to  writing,  but  we  have  no  more  accurate  knowledge  concerning  it. 

1  Comrn.   in  Cant.  i. ;  Migne,  PG.,  xiii.   93.  *  Migne,  PG.,  xi.   641  — 1632. 

3  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.  36,   2.  4  E^ts.,  Adv.  Hierocl.  c.    i. 

5  Contra  Celsum  i.  45. 

148  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

P.  Koetschau,  Die  Uberlieferung  der  Biicher  des  Origenes  gegen  Celsus, 
in  Texte  und  Untersuchungen,  Leipzig,  1889,  vi.  i ;  cf.  F.  Wctllis  in  The 
Classical  Review  (1889),  iii.  392 — 398;  J.  A.Robinson  in  The  Journal  of 
Philology  (1890),  xviii.  288 — 296.  The  editio  princeps  (Greek  text)  is  that 
of  D.  Hoschel,  Augsburg,  1605.  A  new  edition  has  been  prepared  by 
Koetschau,  Leipzig,  1899  (Die  griech.  christl.  Schriftsteller  der  ersten  drei 
Jahrh.,  Origenes  I — II ;  see  §  39,  2).  A  German  translation  was  made  by  J.  Rohm, 
Kempten,  1876 — 1877,  2  voll.  (Bibl.  der  Kirchenvater).  K.  J.  Neumann, 
Der  romische  Staat  und  die  allgemeine  Kirche,  Leipzig  1900,  i.  265 — 273 
(treats  of  the  time  and  occasion  of  its  composition).  J.  Patrick,  The  apo 
logy  of  Origen  in  reply  to  Celsus,  London,  1892.  See  also  the  literature 
relative  to  the  work  of  Celsus:  Th.  Keim ,  Celsus'  Wahres  Wort,  Zurich, 
1873.  B.  Aubt ,  Hist,  des  persecutions  de  1'Eglise,  ii.  La  polemique 
pa'ienne  a  la  fin  du  IP  siecle,  2.  ed.,  Paris,  1878.  E.  Pdagaud,  Celse, 
Paris,  1879.  P-  Koetschau,  Die  Gliederung  des  fltXijIH)?  Xoyoc  des  Celsus,  in 
Jahrb.  fur  protest.  Theol.  (1892),  xviii.  604 — 632.  J.Fr.  S.Muth,  DerKampf 
des  heidnischen  Philosophen  Celsus  gegen  das  Christentum,  Mainz,  1899. 
F.  A.  Winter,  Uber  den  Wert  der  direkten  und  indirekten  Uberlieferung 
von  Origenes'  Biichern  « Contra  Celsum»  (Progr.),  Burghausen,  1903,  i. 

7.  WORKS   AGAINST   HERETICS.  -  -  His    writings   against   heresy, 
and  the  records   of  his    oral  controversies  with  heretics,    are  known 
to  us  only  through  citations ;   thus,  Julius  Africanus  mentions  *  a  dis 
putation  on  an  unknown  subject  with  a  certain  Agnomon  (?)  Bassus. 
Origen  himself  tells  us  of  a  discussion  with  the  Valentinian  Candidus 
(in  the  Catalogue  it   is    called  Dialogus    adversus  Candidum  Valenti- 
nianum),  probably   at  Athens   about  240 ,    on  the  origin  of  the  Son 
from  the  Father,  and  the  possibility  of  the  devil's  conversion 2.    Euse- 
bius  narrates  the  fact  of  his  colloquy  with  Berillus,  bishop  of  Bostra 
in  Arabia,    on  the  subject  of  Monarchianism,    about  the  year  244 3. 

The  tradition  in  Epiphanius  (Haer.  66,  21)  that  Origen  refuted  the 
Manichaeans,  and  that  he  wrote  against  Menander,  Basilides,  Hermogenes 
and  others,  took  its  origin,  very  probably,  in  the  fact  that  incidentally  his 
works  abound  in  anti-heretical  polemic.  Cf.  Theodoret.,  Haer.  fab.  comp. 
i.  2  4  19  25;  ii.  2  7;  iii.  i.  For  the  authorship  of  the  Philosophumena 
cf.  §  54,  i  3,  and  on  the  Dialogus  de  recta  in  Deum  fide  cf.  §  46,  2. 

8.  DOGMATIC  WRITINGS.  -  -  The  original  text  of  all  the  doctrinal 
writings  of  Origen  is  lost.     The  most  important  of  these  works  was 
the  De  Principiis,  7izp\  dpyuw.    It  treated  in  four  books  of  the  funda 
mental  doctrines  or  principles  of  Christian  faith.     Only  some  meagre 
fragments  of  the  original  have  been  preserved,  mostly  in  the  Philo- 
calia   Origenis   (cc.    I    21).     The  whole    work   has  reached    us   in   a 
translation,  or  rather  a  free  paraphrase,    by  Rufinus4;    on  the  other 
hand  the  translation  of  St.  Jerome,  that  aimed  at  literal  correctness, 

1   Jul.  Afr.,   Ep.   ad  Orig.   c.    I  ;    Orig.,   Ep.   ad  Afr.   c.   2. 

"2  Orig.,  Ep.  ad  quosdam  caros  sues  Alexandriam,  in  Rufin.,  De  adult,  libr.  Orig. ; 
Migne,  PG.,  xvii.  624  ff. ;  Hier.,  Adv.  Rufin.,  ii.  18 — 19. 

3  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.   33,   3 ;  Hier.,  De  viris  ill.   c.   60. 

4  Migne,  PG.,  xi.    in — 414. 

§    39-      ORIGEN.  149 

has  shared  the  fate  of  the  original.  Only  a  few  fragments  of  it  are 
extant1.  On  the  foundations  of  the  apostolic  preaching,  as  roughly 
outlined  by  him  at  the  beginning  of  his  work,  Origen  undertakes  to 
construct  a  consistent  system  of  doctrine.  The  first  book  treats  dif 
fusely  of  God  and  the  world  of  spirits;  the  second  of  the  world  and 
man,  their  renovation  by  means  of  the  Incarnation  of  the  Logos,  and 
their  end  or  scope;  the  third  discusses  human  freedom  and  the  final 
triumph  of  the  good ;  the  fourth  is  devoted  to  a  theory  of  scriptural 
interpretation.  This  work  was  composed  at  Alexandria2,  about  230, 
and  is  the  earliest  attempt  at  a  scientific  exposition  of  Christian  doc 
trine.  By  reason,  however,  of  its  departure  from  the  lines  of  eccle 
siastical  tradition  it  aroused  in  equal  measure  both  opposition  and 
admiration.  It  was  at  Alexandria  also3  (before  231)  that  he  wrote 
his  ten  books  of  « Miscellanies »  (arpcoparelq;  cf.  §  38,  3),  on  the  aim 
and  contents  of  which  the  few  extant  fragments  4  throw  no  clear  light. 
From  the  philosophical  doctrines  of  Plato  and  Aristotle,  Numenius 
and  Cornutus,  he  drew  proofs  of  the  truth  of  Christianity 5.  Various 
scriptural  texts,  e.  g.  of  Daniel  and  Galatians,  were  explained  by 
means  of  scholia*.  Before  writing  the  De  principiis  he  had  composed 
at  Alexandria  two  books  on  the  resurrection,  ^spl  dvaGrdascoQ1 .  The 
Catalogue  of  his  works  mentions  two  dialogues  on  the  same  subject 
dedicated  to  his  friend  Ambrose8.  Some  fragments  of  his  work  on 
the  resurrection  (De  resurrectione) 9  of  the  body  are  preserved  in  the 
homonymous  work  of  Methodius  of  Olympus;  others  in  a  treatise 
of  St.  Jerome10.  Methodius  defended  against  Origen  the  material 
identity  of  the  risen  body  with  that  we  now  possess. 

A  separate  edition  of  the  De  principiis  was  published  by  E.  R.  Rede- 
penning,  Leipzig,  1836.  C.  Fr.  Schnitzer  had  already  undertaken  a  recon 
struction  of  it  in  German,  Stuttgart,  1835.  For  an  English  translation  of 
the  fragments  of  the  «De  principiis»  see  Ante-Nicene  Fathers  (ed.  Coxe, 
1885,  iv.  239  384).  The  libellus  de  arbitrii  libertate  mentioned  by  Origen 
(Comm.  in  Rom.,  vii.  16)  is  identified  with  De  principiis,  iii.  i.  The  little 
work  «On  the  sin  against  the  Holy  Spirit»  in  Athanasius  (Ep.  4 ,  9  ad 
Scrap.)  corresponds  to  De  principiis,  i.  3.  E.  Riggenbach,  Der  trinitarische 
Taufbefehl  Mt.  xxviii.  19  bei  Origenes,  Giitersloh,  1904. 

9.  ASCETIC  WORKS  AND  HOMILIES.  -  Two  of  his  works  on 
practical  asceticism  have  reached  us,  and  their  text  is  fairly  well- 
preserved.  Though  not  exempt  from  the  influence  of  heterodox 

1  Hier.,  Ep.    124.  2  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.   24,   3.  3  Ib. 

4  Migne,  PG.,  xi.  99—108. 

5  Hier.,  Ep.    70,   4  ;   see  the  remarks  of  Eusebius  concerning  Origen's  critical  com 
mentaries  on  the  writings  of  pagan  philosophers,  in  Hist,   eccl.,  vi.    18,   3. 

6  Hier.,   Comm.  in  Dan.  ad  iv.   5;   ix.   24;   xiii.    i  ;   Comm.  in  Gal.,  prol. ;   ad  v.  13 

7  Orig.,  De  princ.,   ii.    10,    I  ;   Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.   24,   2. 

8  Cf.  Theoph.   Alex.,  in  Hier.,   Ep.   92,   4. 

<J  Migne,  PG.,  xi.   91  —  100.  I0  Hier.,  Contra  lo.  Hieros,  cc.   25—26. 

!50  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

ideas,  they  breathe  a  spirit  of  genuine  piety.  The  work  on  Prayer 
fasp}  stiff?)  1  was  composed  after  the  commentary  on  Genesis  (c.  23), 
probably  after  231,  and  was  dedicated  to  Ambrose  and  Tatiana, 
the  latter's  wife  or  sister.  It  treats  in  the  first  part  of  prayer  in 
general  (cc.  3  —  17)  and  in  the  second  (cc.  18—30)  of  the  Lord's 
Prayer.  The  Exhortation  to  Martyrdom  (elq  imprvptov  nporpemtxbq 
MfOQJ2,  written  some  years  later,  appeals  with  powerful  eloquence 
to  Ambrose  and  to  Protoctetus,  a  presbyter  of  Caesarea,  who  had 
encountered3  grave  perils  in  the  persecution  of  Maximinus  Thrax 

(235 238).     In   his  Catalogue    of  the   works    of   Origen  St.  Jerome 

mentions,  beside  the  exegetical  homilies,  other  homilies,  of  which  so 
far  as  is  known,  there  is  now  no  trace:  De  pace  horn,  i,  Exhorta- 
toria  ad  Pioniam,  De  ieiunio .  De  monogamis  et  trigamis  horn,  ii, 
In  Thar  so  horn.  ii. 

The  work  on  Prayer  was  first  printed  at  Oxford  in  1686.  The  Ex 
hortation  to  Martyrdom  was  edited  by  J.  R.  Wetstein,  Basle,  1674.  A  new 
edition  of  both  has  been  brought  out  by  P.  Koetsehau,  Leipzig,  1899  (Die 
griech.  christl.  Schriftsteller  der  ersten  drei  Jahrh. ,  Origenes  i— ii).  For 
a  German  version  of  the  same  cf.  J.  Kohlhofer ,  Kempten,  1874  (Bibl. 
der  Kirchenvater).  F.  A.  Winter,  liber  den  Wert  der  direkten  und  in- 
direkten  Uberlieferung  von  Origenes'  Biichern  « contra  Celsum»  (Progr.), 
Burghausen,  1903,  i. 

10.  THE  LETTERS  OF  ORIGEN.  -  -  Origen  must  have  kept  up  a 
very  extensive  correspondence.  The  Catalogue  of  his  works  makes 
mention  of  several  collections  of  letters:  Epistolarum  eius  ad  diver sos 
libri  ix,  Aliarum  epistolarum  libri  ii,  Excerpt  a  Origenis  et  diver- 
sarum  ad  eum  epistolarum  libri  ii  (epistolae  synodorum  super  causa 
Origenis  in  libra  secundo).  Of  all  these  only  two  complete  letters 
have  reached  us,  one  to  Julius  Africanus4  and  one  to  St.  Gregory 
Thaumaturgus 5.  The  first  was  written  at  Nicomedia  (cc.  I  15) 
about  240.  It  defends  with  much  erudition  the  genuineness  and  cano- 
nicity  of  the  history  of  Susanna  (and  of  the  other  deutero-canonical 
parts  of  the  Book  of  Daniel)  against  objections  of  Julius  Africanus 
in  a  letter  addressed  to  Origen  himself6.  The  second  letter,  pro 
bably  written  in  the  same  year,  contains  fatherly  advice  to  his  former 
disciple  Gregory:  he  should  not  allow  his  interest  in  the  Holy 
Scriptures  to  flag,  and  should  look  on  the  study  of  the  profane 
sciences  only  as  a  means  towards  the  higher  end  of  the  knowledge 
of  the  Scriptures.  Several  other  letters  are  known  to  us  through 
citations  in  Eusebius,  Rufinus,  Jerome  and  others,  e.  g.  one  in  reply 
to  the  reproach  of  too  great  attachment  to  Hellenic  science7,  another 

1  Migne,  PG.,  xi.  416—561.  2  Ib.,   xi.   564—637. 

3  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.   28.  4  Migne,  PG.,  xi.  48—85. 

5  Ib.,  xi.  88—92.  6  Ib.,  xi.  41—48. 

7  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.    19,    12 — 14. 

§    39-      ORIGEN.  151 

to  the  Emperor  Philippus  Arabs,  and  one  to  his  consort,  the  Em 
press  Severa  1,  letters  to  Pope  Fabian  and  to  very  many  other  bishops 
«in  the  matter  of  his  orthodoxy  »  2. 

For  the  letter  to  St.  Gregorius  Thaumaturgus  see  J.  Drdseke  ,  in 
Jahrb.  f.  prot.  Theologie  (1881),  vii.  102  —  126.  It  is  published  as  an 
appendix  to  P.  Koetschau's  edition  of  the  panegyric  of  St.  Gregory  on  Origen 
(pp.  40  —  44,  cf.  xv  —  xvii),  Freiburg  i.  Br.,  1894. 

11.  WORKS  OF   UNCERTAIN   AUTHORSHIP.   -  -  In    the   preface    to 
his   Liber   inter  pretationis    hebraicorum    nominum  ,    St.   Jerome   says 
that  it  is  a  Latin  version  of  a  lexicon    of  proper  names    of  the  Old 
Testament  made  by  Philo,  and  of  a   similar  New  Testament  lexicon 
made   by  Origen.     The   author   of  the   Quaestiones   et  Responsa   ad 
Orthodoxos,  attributed  to  St.  Justin,  makes  Origen  the  author  of  Ex 
position  of  names  or   measures   that    recur   in   the  Sacred  Scriptures 
(qu.   86;    cf.   82).     The   work  in  question  may   be  some   compilation 
by  a  later  writer  of  etymologies  of  biblical  proper  names,   proposed 
at  different   times    by  Origen.     It   seems  certain  that  in   their  actual 
shape  the  Greek  Onomastica,  first  edited  by  Martianay  (1699),    and 
recently   by   de  Lagarde  (1870   1887),    are   much    more    recent  than 
the   lexica   compiled    by  Jerome.    Victor   of  Capua3   cites    fragments 
ex  libro  tertio   Origenis    TTS/K  <p6ffecov  and    ex  Origenis   libro  primo 
De  pascha.    There   is   no  other  mention  of  a  work   by  Origen  mpl 
<p6(jsa>v.     A  libel  his  Origenis  De  pascha    is  mentioned  in  the  Liber 
Anatoli  de  ratione  paschali  (c.  i)4. 

On  the  lexicon  of  the  proper  names  in  the  New  Testament  see 
O.  Bardenhewer,  Der  Name  Maria,  Freiburg,  1895  (Bibl.  Studien,  i.  i), 
pp.  23  —  26;  Redepenning,  Origenes,  i.  458  —  461;  Zahn,  Gesch.  des  neu- 
testamentl.  Kanons,  ii.  948  —  953. 

the  purest  intention  of  contrasting  the  false  Gnosis  with  true  science, 
and  of  winning  over  to  the  Church  the  educated  circles  of  Hellenism, 
that  Origen  undertook  the  combination  of  Hellenic   philosophy  with 
the  faith  of  the  Church.    Nevertheless,  his  doctrinal  system,  that  he 
imagined  to  be  both  Christian  and  ecclesiastical,  bears  the  marks  of 
Neoplatonism  and  Gnosticism.     According    to  him  it   is  a  necessary 
consequence   of    the    goodness    of  God    that    He   should    reveal    or 
communicate    Himself.     It    follows    likewise,    from  His   immutability, 
that   this  revelation   should   be    from    all  eternity.     Its  organ   is   the 
Logos,    other   than    the    Father5,    not   only   in    person    but   in   sub 
stance  (    oijoiav    xat   bnoxstfjisvov  :   De   orat.  1.  c.).     It   is   through 

1  Ib.,  vi.  36,  3. 

2  Ib.,  vi.   36,  4;  for  the  letter  to  Pope  Fabian  see  Hier.,  Ep.  84,    10. 

3  Schol.  vet.  Patr.,  in  Pitra,   Spicil.   Solesm.,   i.   268. 

4  Migne,  PG.,  x.   210. 

5  De  orat.  c.    15:  erspog  rou  xarpdg:  Contra  Gels.,  v.  39:   deorspoq  &eog. 

I  $  2  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

the  Logos  that  the  Holy  Spirit  proceeds  from  the  Father;  He  is 
inferior  to  the  Logos,  as  the  latter  is  inferior  to  the  Father1. 
The  next  degree  in  the  development  of  the  divine  unity  into  multi 
plicity  is  the  world  of  spirits,  to  which  belong  the  souls  of  men. 
They  were  all  created  from  eternity  and  in  equal  perfection.  They 
are  not,  however,  essentially  good ;  it  is  only  by  the  exercise  of  their 
free  will  that  they  choose  goodness.  In  the  past  they  abused  their 
freedom  in  manifold  ways.  In  consequence,  this  sensible  world  was 
created  as  a  place  of  purification  for  spirits  expelled  by  God  from 
their  original  home,  enveloped  in  matter  of  divers  kinds,  and  exiled 
in  more  or  less  gross  material  shapes,  to  which  class  our  human 
bodies  belong.  In  the  end,  however,  all  spirits  must  return  to  God. 
It  is  true  that  some  must  continue  to  undergo  a  process  of  purification, 
in  the  other  world,  but  eventually  all  shall  be  saved  and  transfigured. 
Evil  is  then  overcome ;  the  world  of  the  senses  has  fulfilled  its  purpose ; 
all  the  non-spiritual  elements  sink  or  fade  into  nothing ;  the  original  unity 
of  God  and  of  all  spiritual  being  is  restored.  Withal,  this  final  restitution 
of  original  conditions  (drroxaTdcrTamc;,  restitutio)  cannot  be  truly  called 
the  end  of  the  world ;  properly  speaking  it  is  only  the  precarious 
term  of  an  evolution  that  moves  on  endlessly  between  apostasy  from 
God  and  return  to  Him.  —  Soon  after  his  death  the  famous  Origenistic 
controversies  broke  out,  and  found  an  echo  even  in  the  far-away  West. 
In  543  the  Synod  of  Constantinople  condemned  in  fifteen  «anathema- 
tisms»  an  equal  number  of  propositions  from  Origen2,  and  in  553 
the  Fifth  General  Council  ranked  him  with  « heretics »  in  its  eleventh 
«anathematism»  3. 

G.  Thomasius,  Origenes.  Ein  Beytrag  zur  Dogmengeschichte  des  3.  Jahr- 
hunderts,  Ntirnberg,  1837.  G.  Ranters,  Des  Origenes  Lehre  von  der  Auf- 
erstehung  desFleisches  (Inaug.-Diss.) ,  Trier,  1851.  F.  Harrer,  Die  Trinitats- 
lehre  des  Kirchenlehrers  Origenes  (Progr.),  Regensburg,  1858.  J.  B.  Kraus, 
Die  Lehre  des  Origenes  liber  die  Auferstehung  der  Toten  (Progr.),  Regens 
burg^  1859.  Al.  Vincenzi,  In  S.  Gregorii  Nysseni  et  Origenis  scripta  et 
doctrinam  nova  recensio,  cum  appendice  de  actis  synodi  V.  oecum.,  Romae, 
1864—1869,  5  voll.  Knittel,  Des  Origenes  Lehre  von  der  Menschwerdung 
des  Sohnes  Gottes,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1872),  liv.  97  —  138.  H.  Schultz, 
Die  Christologie  des  Origenes  im  Zusammenhange  seiner  Weltanschauung, 
in  Jahrb.  fur  protest.  Theol.  (1875),  i.  193—247  369—424.  J.  Denis, 
De  la  philosophic  d'Origene.  Memoire  couronne  par  1'Institut,  Paris, 
1884,  vii.  730.  A.  Harnack,  Lehrbuch  der  Dogmengeschichte,  Freiburg, 
1888,  i.  2,  559—604.  M.  Lang,  Uber  die  Leiblichkeit  der  Vermmft- 
wesen  bei  Origenes  (Inaug.-Diss.),  Leipzig,  1892.  L.  Atzberger,  Gesch. 
der  christl.  Eschatologie  innerhalb  der  vornicanischen  Zeit,  Freiburg,  1896, 

\\T\       9  \~\\\ 4  C*  r\          f-r       iSfhi-ffiiAna      ~\~\c±    C\*-\  <^-^.-^>  \        ^4-"U  I  -.«.       A  /T 'I _  O  _  O  ^V       'T"1. .  --   --  „  7 

pp.  366—456. 


d'hist.    et   de   litterature   religieuses    (1900),    v.   99—127.  °W.  Fairweather , 

>p.  366—456.    G.  Capitaine,  De  Origenis  ethica,  Minister,  1898.    J.  Turmel, 
L'eschatologie  a  la  fin  du  4*  siecle.  i :  L'eschatologie  orige'niste,  in  Revue 

1  De  princip.,  i.  3,   5.  -  Mansi,  SS.   Cone.   Coll.,   ix.  395—400. 

3  Ib.,  ix.  384. 

§    40.      DIONYSIUS    OF    ALEXANDRIA.  153 

Origen  and  Greek  Patristic  Theology,  London,  1901.  G.  Anrich,  Clemens 
und  Origenes  als  Begriinder  der  Lehre  vom  Fegfeuer  (Abhandlungen  fur 
H.  y.  Holtzmann),  Tubingen,  1902.  F.  Nau,  Le  concile  apostolique  dans 
Origene,  in  Bull.  crit.  (1904),  pp.  435—438. 

13.  AMBROSE.  -  -  This    oft-mentioned    friend    and   protector   of  Origen 
had    been    a    high    official    of  the   imperial    court    (Epiph. ,    Haer.  64,    3). 
Through  Origen  he  became  a  convert  from  Gnosticism  (Eus. ,  Hist,  eccl., 
vi.  18,  i).    He  left  a  correspondence  with  Origen  (Hier.,  De  viris  ill.,  c.  56). 
Short  fragments  of  two  letters  of  Ambrose  are  preserved  in  Orig.,  De  orat, 
c.  5;  Hier.,  Ep.   43,   i. 

14.  TRYPHO.  —  Besides  some  letters  this  disciple  of  Origen  wrote  many 
tractates  (multa  opuscula) ,    among   them  one    on   the    sacrifice    of  the   red 
cow  (Nm.  xix)    and   another   on    the    sacrifice    of  Abraham  (Gen.  xv.  9  if). 
See  Jerome,  De  viris  ill.,  c.   57.    So  far  as  is  known,    no    fragment  of  his 
writings  has  reached  us. 

15.  AMMONIUS.  —  In  his  Church  History  Eusebius  has  confounded  the 
Neoplatonist  philosopher  Ammonius  Sakkas  with  a  Christian  of  the  same  name. 
Among    other   books   the   latter   wrote    one  on  the  accord  between  Moses 
and  Jesus  (-spl  TYJ?  Mwuj£u>c  xal  'Irjjou  aufjuptoviac :  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.  19,  10). 
He    is   probably  identical   with  the  « Ammonius   of  Alexandria »  who  com 
piled  a  synopsis  of  the  gospels  (ota  Tsaaapwv  suay/eAiov)  based  on  St.  Matthew 
(Eus.,   Ep.  ad  Carpianum;   Hieronymus  is  inexact   in  De  viris  ill.,    c.  55). 
It   is   supposed   that  Ammonius   was    a  contemporary  of  Origen.     For  the 
Latin  gospel-harmony  printed  under  his  name  see  §  18,  3. 

§  40.     Dionysius   of  Alexandria. 

i.  HIS  LIFE.  -  -  He  was  born,  apparently,  before  the  end  of 
the  second  century  \  of  heathen  parents.  Through  diligent  reading 
and  earnest  investigation  he  was  led  to  the  Christian  faith2,  and 
began  to  frequent  the  school  of  Origen3.  From  231 — 232  he 
was  the  successor  of  Heraklas  as  head-master  of  the  Alexandrine 
catechetical  school 4  and  retained  the  office,  it  would  seem,  even  after 
he  had  succeeded  Heraklas  (247 — 248)  as  bishop  of  Alexandria5. 
The  rest  of  his  life  was  a  series  of  conflicts  and  sufferings.  In  250 — 251, 
he  escaped  by  flight  from  the  persecution  of  Decius6.  During  the 
persecution  of  Valerian  in  257 — 258  he  was  banished  to  Kephro 
in  Libya,  and  later  to  Colluthion  in  the  Mareotis,  «a  still  more  savage 
and  Libya-like  place»7.  He  does  not  seem  to  have  returned  to 
Alexandria  before  March  262.  There  he  found  awaiting  him  a  con 
dition  of  civil  war,  famine  and  pestilence8.  He  was  too  ill  to  take 
part  in  the  Synod  that  met  at  Antioch  in  264 — 265  in  order  to  de 
cide  concerning  Paul  of  Samosata9;  he  passed  away  during  the  de 
liberations  of  the  Synod  10. 

Dittrich,  Dionysius  der  Grofie  von  Alexandrien,  Freiburg  1867.  Cf. 
Th.  Forster,  in  Zeitschr.  fur  die  histor.  Theol.  (1871),  xli.  42  —  76. 

1  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vii.   27,   2.  °     Ib.,  vii.    7,   3. 

3  Ib.,  vi.   29,   4.  4  Ib.  5  Ib.,  vi,  35.              6  Ib.,  vi.  40. 

7  Ib.,  vii.    II.  8  Ib.,   vii.  21  —  22.  a  Ib.,   vii.   27,   2. 

10  Ib.,   vii.   28,   3. 

154  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

2.  WORKS  OF  DIONYSIUS.  -  -  He  was  honored  by  Eusebius  with 
the    title    of  Great1,    and   Athanasius    called    him    a    Doctor    of  the 
Catholic  Church2.     His    greatness,    however,    was    more   in    the  man 
than  in  the  teacher.    He  bore  with  energy  and  success  the  part  that 
fell  to  him  in  the  ecclesiastical  difficulties  of  his  time,   and  showed 
himself  no  less  eloquent  and  firm  in  dealing  with  error,  than  he  was 
mild  and  sagacious  in  his  treatment  of  those  who  had  gone  astray. 
His  writings   are    all  occasional,    dictated    by   the  need  of  the  hour. 
His  diction  is  clear  and  lively,    and  while  in  doctrinal  exposition  he 
is  not   free   from  obscurity,    he   is  always  dominated    by  the  noblest 
and  most  self-sacrificing  spirit  of  zeal  for  the  salvation  of  souls.    Only 
a  few  fragments  of  his  writings  have  reached  us;  most  of  them  and 
those  of  chief  importance,    owe   their  preservation    to  their  insertion 
into  the  Church  History  of  Eusebius. 

These  fragments  are  found  in  Migne,  PG.,  x.  1233 — 1344,  1575 — 1602, 
but  in  a  very  imperfect  condition.  A  better  edition  is  that  of  S.  de  Magi- 
stris,  Rome,  1796,  overlooked  by  Migne.  For  a  list  of  the  fragments  missing 
in  the  edition  of  Migne  see  Pitra,  Analecta  Sacra  iii.  596.  Some  Syriac  and 
Armenian  fragments  current  under  the  name  of  Dionysius  were  collected 
and  translated  into  Latin  by  P.  Martin,  in  Pitra,  1.  c. ,  iv.  169 — 182, 
413 — 422  (cf.  xxiii  ff.).  See  Harnack,  Gesch.  der  altchristlichen  Literatur, 
i.  409 — 427;  TJi.  Forster,  De  doctrina  et  sententiis  Dionysii  M.  ep.  Alex. 
(Dissert,  inaug.),  Berlin,  1865;  C/i.  L.  Feltoe,  AIOVUJI'OU  Xsfyava.  The  Letters 
and  other  remains  of  Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  in  Cambridge  Patristic 
Texts  (1904),  xxxv.  283. 

3.  HIS  PRINCIPAL  WORKS.  -  -  In   the  Books    on   Nature,    ol    xsp} 
yjffscoQ  Aofoi 3,  as  the   fragments  in  Eusebius 4  show,  he  composed  a 
solid  and   thorough   polemic  against  an  Epicureanism  or  materialism 
based  on  the  atomic  system  of  Democritus.    The  work  was  probably 
composed   previous   to    247  —  248.    We    know   only    the  title   of  the 
Book   on  Temptations   (o   xspl   nstpaafjL&v  AofOQJ5.     Through  a  later 
Catena   there   have   come   down   some   copious    fragments,    generally 
speaking    authentic,    of    his    commentary    on    Ecclesiastes 6,    written 
supposedly  before  247—248.    They  cover  Ecclesiastes  I,  I  to  3,  II7. 
The  Catenae-fragments  on  the  Book   of  Job  are  not   genuine.     Two 
Books  on    the  Promises  (itzp\    Ena-ffSAtaw  duo    ffUffpafJi/jtaTaj,  written 
probably    in    253 — 257,    are    directed    against    a   « Refutation    of   the 
Allegorists»    (%faf%oq   (DJ^opiGicov),    composed    by  a  certain  Nepos, 
bishop  in  the  district  of  Arsinoe8.    In  opposition  to  Origen  the  latter 
undertook  to  defend  the  historical  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures,  and 
maintained  that  in  the  Apocalypse  there  was  promised  after  the  Re- 

1  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vii.,  praef.  2  Ep.  de  sent.  Dion.,   c.   6. 

3  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vii.   26,   2. 

4  Praep.   Evang.,   xiv.   23—27;  Migne,  PG.,   x.    1249—1268. 

5  Eus.,  Hist,   eccl.,  vii.   26,   2.  6  Ib.,   vii.   26,   3. 

7  Migne,  PG.,  x.    1577—1588.  8  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vii.   24,    I. 

4°-      DIONYSIUS    OF    ALEXANDRIA.  I  55 

surrection  a  millennial  reign  of  the  just  on  this  earth.  In  the  first  book 
of  his  work  Dionysius  argued  against  these  Chiliastic  dreams,  while  in 
the  second  he  commented  on  the  authority  of  the  Apocalypse.  Ac 
cording  to  him  it  was  composed  by  a  «holy  and  divinely  inspired 
man»,  though  not  by  the  Evangelist  John  *.  His  own  orthodoxy 
was  the  subject  of  a  controversy  that  broke  out  apropos  of  some 
letters  he  wrote,  after  257,  in  reference  to  Sabellianism 2.  In  order 
to  emphasize  very  plainly  the  personal  distinction  between  the  Father 
and  the  Son,  Dionysius  had  made  use  of  expressions  and  similes  that 
implied  a  distinction  in  substance  and  reduced  the  Son  to  the  rank 
of  a  creature3.  For  this  a  complaint  was  laid  against  him  before 
Pope  Dionysius  (259 — 268),  and  he  was  invited  by  the  latter  to  ex 
plain  his  words.  This  he  did  in  a  reply4  to  the  Pope,  and  more 
fully  in  the  four  books  of  his  « Refutation  and  Defence »  f^ef^oQ 
xat  djcoXoyia.)  5.  They  contain  an  exposition  of  his  thoroughly  orthodox 
teaching  concerning  the  Trinity,  and  seem  to  have  quite  satisfied  the 
Pope.  The  extant  fragments  have  come  down  to  us  chiefly  through 
citations  in  Athanasius  and  Basil  the  Great. 

The  first  and  most  complete  collection  of  the  fragments  of  the  work 
on  Nature  is  in  Routh ,  Reliquiae  sacrae,  iv.  393—437.  The  fragments 
preserved  by  Eusebius  were  translated  into  German  and  illustrated  at 
length  by  G.  Roch ,  Die  Schrift  des  alexandr.  Bischofs  Dionysius  d.  Gr. 
«tiber  die  Natur»  (Inaug.-Diss.),  Leipzig,  1882.  There  is  an  English 
translation  of  the  literary  remains  of  Dionysius  by  Salmond,  in  Ante-Nicene 
Fathers  (ed.  Coxe,  1896),  vi.  81 — 120.  For  the  spurious  Catenae-frag 
ments  on  Job  see  Routh,  1.  c.,  iv.  439 — 454,  and  ib.;  iii.  390 — 400  (Migne, 
PL.,  v.  117 — 128)  for  the  remnants  of  the  «  Refutation  and  Defence»,  taken 
from  Athanasius,  Basil  the  Great,  and  other  authors.  We  ought  probably  to 
add  a  fragment  from  «the  first  book  of  the  work  against  Sabellius  (~poj  2a- 
psXXtov),  mentioned  by  Eusebius  (Praep.  evang.,  vii.  19).  For  his  teaching 
concerning  the  Trinity  see  H.  Hagemann,  Die  romische  Kirche  ...  in  den 
ersten  drei  Jahrhunderten,  Freiburg,  1864,  PP-  411  —  432,  and  Dittrich, 
1.  c.,  pp.  91—115. 

4.  HIS  LETTERS.  --  Apropos  of  the  schism  of  Novatian  and  the 
question  of  the  treatment  of  the  Lapsi,  Dionysius  wrote,  after  251, 
a  serie-:  of  letters,  in  which  he  urged  Novatian  and  his  followers  to 
submit  to  the  legitimate  Pope  Cornelius  (251- — 253)  and  advocated 
the  mildest  possible  treatment  of  those  who  had  fallen  during  the  per 
secutions.  His  Letter  to  the  anti-pope  Novatian  is  a  noble  and  memo 
rable  document6.  He  wrote  also  a  letter  to  Fabius,  bishop  of  Antioch, 
some  fragments  of  which  are  preserved  in  Eusebius7.  After  256  he 

1  Fragments  of  the  second  book    in  Eus.,  Hist,   eccl.,    vii.   24 — 25;    Migne ,    PG., 
x.    1237—1250. 

2  Eiis.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vii.  6,   26,    I.  3  Athan.,  Ep.  de  sent.  Dion.,  c.  4. 
4  Ib.,  c.    18.              5  Ib.,  c.    13;   cf.  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vii.   26,    i. 

6  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.  45. 

7  Ib.,  vi.  41 — 42  44;  for  other  letters  cf.   ib.,  vi.  46. 

1^6  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

acted  as  peacemaker  in  the  conflict  concerning  the  validity  of  heretical 
baptism,  though  he  does  not  seem  to  have  thoroughly  grasped  the 
full  meaning  of  the  controversy.  Only  Eusebian  excerpts  of  the 
latter  correspondence  have  reached  us1.  Apropos  of  the  teachings 
of  Paul  of  Samosata  he  wrote  in  264 — 265  a  condemnatory  letter 
to  the  Church  of  Antioch2.  The  letter  to  Paul,  found  in  the  col 
lections  of  the  councils3,  is  an  Apollinarist  or  Monophysite  forgery. 
It  was  an  ancient  custom  of  the  bishops  of  Alexandria  to  send 
an  annual  letter  to  the  churches  of  their  dioceses.  Such  communi 
cations  were  known  as  Festal  Letters  (imaroXat  kopraanxai)  and 
were  usually  issued  after  Epiphany.  They  announced  the  date  of 
Easter  and  the  beginning  of  the  preparatory  fast ;  they  also  contained 
instructions  concerning  the  Easter  festival  or  other  matters.  From 
a  few  of  these  Festal  Letters  of  Dionysius,  Eusebius  has  saved 
some  historical  data4.  In  a  Festal  Letter  to  Domitius  and  Didymus, 
written  in  the  reign  of  Decius,  before  the  Easter  of  25 15,  Dionysius 
promulgates  an  eight-year  paschal  cycle,  and  orders  that  the  feast 
shall  always  be  celebrated  after  the  Spring  Equinox6.  He  wrote 
in  his  own  defence  to  the  Egyptian  bishop  Germanus  who  had 
reproached  him  for  flying  from  the  persecution7.  In  a  letter  to 
Hermammon  and  the  brethren  in  Egypt,  Dionysius  « related  much 
concerning  the  iniquity  of  Decius  and  his  successors  and  then  made 
mention  of  the  peace  under  Gallienus» 8.  A  letter  to  Basilides, 
bishop  of  the  churches  of  the  Pentapolis9,  has  been  preserved 
in  its  entirety,  by  reason  of  its  incorporation  among  the  canonical 
documents  of  the  Greek  Church.  It  treats  principally  of  the  precise 
time  of  the  Resurrection  of  Our  Lord,  and  therefore  of  the  time 
when  the  fast  of  preparation  should  cease  and  the  paschal  festivities 
begin10.  Stephen  Gobarus  mentions  a  letter  of  Dionysius  to  Theo- 
tecnus,  bishop  of  Caesarea  in  Palestine,  written  after  the  death  of 
Origen,  and  dealing  favorably  with  his  memory11. 

The  Epistola  canonica  ad  Basilidem  is  in  Routh,  1.  c. ,  iii.  219 — 250, 
also  in  Pitra,  luris  eccles.  Graecorum  historia  et  monumenta,  Romae,  1864, 
J-  54*  —  545;  cf.  548  f.  For  two  letters  in  a  Codex  Vaticanus  bearing  the 
name  of  Dionysius  but  belonging  to  Isidore  Pelusiota,  see  G.  Mercati, 
Note  di  letteratura  biblica  e  cristiana  antica  (Studi  e  Testi,  v.  2—86), 
Rome,  1901.  G.  Holzhey,  in  Theol.  -  praktische  Monatsschrift  (1901),  xi. 
5J3  -525>  concludes  from  the  relations  between  the  Didascalia  Apostolorum 
?  46)  and  the  works  of  Dionysius  that  towards  the  end  of  his  literary 
career  he  recast  the  original  nucleus  of  the  Didascalia -}  probably  it  was 
done  by  one  of  his  disciples,  shortly  after  his  death.  At  a  later  date  this 

1  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vii.  4—9.  "-  Ib.,  vii.   27,   2. 

J  Mansi,  i.   1039  —  1088.  *  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.',  vii.   20—22. 

Ib.,  vii.   ii,  20-25.  6  Ib.,  vii.  20.  T  Ib.,  vi.  40;  vii.   ii. 

8  Ib.,  vii.  22,    12;   fragments  ib.,  vii.   i,    10,   23.  9  Ib.,  vii.   26,   3. 

10  Migne,  PG.,  x.    1271—1290.  u  Phot.,  Bibl.   God.   232. 


revised  Didascalia  was  enlarged  to  its  present  shape.  In  the  Revue 
d'Histoire  ecclesiastique  (1901),  ii.  808 — 809,  F.  X.  Funk,  expresses  grave 
doubts  concerning  this  theory  of  Holzhey. 

5.  ANATOLIUS.  -  -  This  writer  appears  about  262  as  a  respectable  and 
influential  citizen  of  Alexandria.  We  meet  him  later  as  coadjutor  of  Theo- 
tecnus,  bishop  of  Caesarea  in  Palestine.  From  269  he  was  bishop  of  Lao- 
dicea  in  Syria.  He  was  well-skilled  in  philosophy,  the  natural  sciences 
and  mathematics,  and  he  wrote  some  works :  on  Easter  (-spl  TOO  -rcaj/a),  an 
introduction  to  arithmetic  (dptBfxr)Tixal  £177.7(077.1)  in  ten  books,  and  «spe- 
cimens  of  his  erudition  and  ability  in  theology»  (Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vii.  32,  6; 
Hier.,  De  viris  ill.,  c.  73).  His  theological  writings  are  lost.  Of  very 
doubtful  authenticity  are  certain  mathematical  fragments  under  the  name 
of  Anatolius  (Fabricius-Harles,  Bibl.  Gr.,  iii.  461  462 — 464;  Migne,  PG., 
x.  231 — 236).  Of  his  work  on  Easter,  Eusebius  has  preserved  a  long 
fra'gment  (Hist,  eccl.,  vii.  32,  14 — 19).  As  to  the  Liber  Anatoli  de  ratione 
paschali  printed  with  a  commentary  (Migne,  PG. ,  x.  209 — 232),  we  may 
believe  with  Zahn  (Forschungen  [1884],  iii.  177  — 196)  that  it  is  not  a 
translation  of  the  work  of  the  hishop  of  Laodicea,  although  in  the  second 
chapter,  almost  the  entire  Eusebian  paschal-fragment  is  cited.  Br.  Krusch 
maintains  (Studien  zur  christlich-mittelalterlichen  Chronologic,  Leipzig,  1880, 
pp.  311 — 316)  that  it  is  a  sixth-century  forgery,  made  in  England  during 
the  Brito-Roman  controversy  on  the  manner  of  celebrating  Easter.  We 
owe  to  Krusch  a  new  edition  of  the  Liber  Anatoli  (ib. ,  pp.  316 — 327). 
Cf.  A.  Anscombe  and  C.  H.  Turner,  in  The  English  Historical  Review  (1895), 
x.  515 — 535  699—710:  T.  Hicklin,  The  date  and  origin  of  the  Pseudo- 
Anatolius  «de  ratione  paschali»,  in  Journal  of  Philology  (1901),  xxviii. 
137 — 151.  He  finds  in  the  work  traces  of  an  original  composition  about 
300,  and  of  a  version  made  about  410.  There  is  an  English  translation 
by  Salmond,  of  the  fragments  of  Anatolius,  in  Ante-Nicene  Fathers  (ed. 
Coxe,  1896),  vi.  146 — 153. 

§  41.     The  later  headmasters  of  the   catechetical  school  of  Alexandria. 

I .  THEOGNOSTUS.  —  In  an  anonymous  excerpt  from  Philippus  Sidetes 
(§  20,  i),  it  is  said  that  Pierius  was  the  successor  of  Dionysius  in  the 
catechetical  school  of  Alexandria,  and  that  Theognostus  succeeded 
Pierius.  In  all  probability,  however,  Theognostus  preceded  Pierius 1 ; 
this  writer  is  not  mentioned  by  either  Eusebius  or  Jerome.  He 
left  seven  books  of  «Hypotyposes»  (uxoToxwasu;,  cf.  §  38,  4).  Ac 
cording  to  the  description  of  them  by  Photius-,  they  contained  a 
dogmatic  system  disposed  in  a  strictly  orderly  manner,  but  also 
strongly  influenced  by  Origenistic  theories.  The  first  book  treated  of 
God  the  Father,  the  second  of  the  Son,  the  third  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
the  fourth  of  angels  and  demons,  the  fifth  and  sixth  of  the  Incarnation 
of  the  Son,  the  seventh  of  the  divine  creation  of  the  world  (n^pi 
$eo'j  drjfJLtoupYiaQ).  Certain  citations  from  Theognostus  in  works  of 
Athanasius  and  Gregory  of  Nyssa  were  very  probably  taken  from 
the  «  Hypotyposes» . 

1  Athan.,  Ep.   4  ad  Scrap,   c.   9;   Ep.   de  deer.  Nic.   Syn.,   c.   25. 
*  Bibl.  Cod.    106. 


For  the  «testimonia»  concerning  Theognostus  and  the  editions  of  the 
fragments  of  the  Hypotyposes  see  Migne,  PG.,  x.  235 — 242,  and  Routh, 
Reliquiae  sacrae  (2),  iii.  405 — 422.  For  an  English  translation  of  the  frag 
ments  of  Theognostus  see  Salmond ,  in  Ante-Nicene  Fathers  (ed.  Coxe, 
1890),  vi.  155 — 156.  -  -  A.  Harnack ,  Die  Hypotyposen  des  Theognost 
(Texte  und  Untersuchungen,  new  series,  ix.  3),  Leipzig,  1903.  Fr.  Diekamp, 
Ein  neues  Fragment  aus  den  Hypotyposen  des  Alexandriners  Theognostus, 
in  Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1902),  Ixxxiv.  48 — 494. 

2.  PIERIUS  —  He  was  a  priest  of  Alexandria,  in  the  time  of  Theonas, 
bishop  of  that  city  (281 — 300),  and  was  distinguished  as  an  ascetic, 
a  writer  and  a  preacher1.  His  ability  as  a  Christian  orator  caused 
him  to  be  known  as  «the  younger  Origen»2.  Philippus  Sidetes  (see 
§  41,  i)  and  Photius3  assert  that  he  was  head-master  of  the  cate 
chetical  school  at  Alexandria.  They  also  say  (Philip  in  an  extract 
first  edited  by  De  Boor)  that  he  was  a  martyr.  They  probably  do 
not  mean  that  he  actually  died  a  martyr's  death,  but  that  he  publicly 
confessed  Christ.  He  certainly  survived  the  persecution  of  Diocletian, 
for  we  meet  him  at  Rome  after  the  persecution  of  Diocletian  4.  Photius  5 
speaks  of  a  work  (pif-Mov)  of  Pierius  in  twelve  treatises  (MyotJ  containing 
Origenistic  errors  on  the  subordination  of  the  Holy  Spirit  and  the  pre- 
existence  of  souls.  Eusebius  and  Jerome  may  be  interpreted  as  meaning 
that  it  was  a  book  of  sermons  6.  According  to  Photius,  one  fragment 
of  the  work  was  entitled  «on  the  gospel  of  St.  Luke»  fstQ  TO  xara 
Aouxavj,  another  «on  Easter  and  Osee»  (sl^  TO  Tidayo.  xac  rbv  "Qarti). 
St.  Jerome  says7  that  the  latter  work  was  a  long  Easter  sermon 
on  the  beginning  of  the  prophecy  of  Osee.  The  titles  of  three  other 
works  are  mentioned  in  the  excerpts  found  in  Philippus  Sidetes;  the 
first  of  a  series  of  paschal  sermons  (b  rrpwwQ  ti>?oc,  rwv  SCQ  TO  ndaya) 
on  the  ideas  of  St.  Paul  concerning  virginity  and  matrimony8;  on 
the  Mother  of  God  (mp\  TY,Q  &ZOTOXO<J)  ;  on  the  life  of  St.  Pamphilus 
(dq  TOV  fiiov  TOO  afiou<piXov),  the  friend  of  Eusebius  and  disciple 
of  St.  Pierius  9. 

For  the  fragments  of  Pierius  see  Routh,  1.  c.  ,  iii.  423—435,  and 
Migne,  PG.,  x.  241—246.  Some  new  fragments  were  published  by  C.  de  Boor, 
in  Texte  und  Untersuchungen  (1888),  v.  2,  165—184.  For  an  English 
translation  of  the  fragments  of  Pierius  see  Salmond,  in  Ante-Nicene  Fathers 
(ed.  Coxe,  1896),  vi.  157.  --  Until  recently  the  above-mentioned  bishop, 
Theonas  of  Alexandria,  was  usually  identified  with  the  homonymous  bishop 
under  whose  name  had  long  been  current  a  Latin  letter  ad  Ludanum  cubi- 
culariorum  praepositum,  first  published  by  d'Achery  in  1675,  whence  it  pas 
sed  unchallenged  into  the  Bibliothecae  patrum  (Routh,  1.  c.,  iii.  437—449; 
Migne,  PG.,  x.  1567—1574).  This  letter  pretends  to  instruct  Lucian,  chief 
of  the  imperial  chamberlains ,  and  the  other  Christian  officers  at  court  as 

Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vii.  32,   26  f.  30.  *  Hier.,  De  viris  ill.,   c.   76. 

Bibl.   Cod.   118   119.  4  Hier^  De  yiris  m<)  c    76_ 

5  Bibl.  Cod.    119.  e  £us  t  }    c  .  ifiet\,  1.  c. 

7  L.  c.  and  Comm.  in  Hos.,  praef.  8  Hier     En    49     3 

9  Phot.,   Bibl.   Cod.    118   119. 


to  the  manner  in  which  they  shall  act  in  order  to  preserve  and  strengthen 
the  favorable  sentiments  of  the  still  pagan  emperor  (Diocletian?)  towards 
Christians.  After  the  researches  of  P.  Batiffol,  in  Bulletin  Critique  (1886), 
vii.  155 — 1 60,  and  Harnack,  Theol.  Literaturzeitung  (1886),  xi.  319 — 326, 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  letter  is  a  forgery  of  late  date,  perhaps 
from  the  pen  of  the  Oratorian  Jerome  Vignier  (f  1661):  cf.  §  3,  2.  - 
A.  Harnack,  Der  gefalschte  Brief  des  Bischofs  Theonas  an  den  Ober- 
kammerherrn  Lucian,  in  Texte  und  Untersuchungen,  new  series,  Leipzig, 
1903,  ix.  3.  There  is  an  English  translation  of  the  Letter  of  Theonas  by 
Salmond,  in  Ante-Nicene  Fathers  (ed.  Coxe,  1896),  vi.  158 — 161. 

3.  PETER  OF  ALEXANDRIA.  -  -  According  to  the  afore-mentioned 
«excerpts»  from  Philippus  Sidetes,  Theognostus  was  followed  by 
Serapion  in  the  headship  of  the  Alexandrine  catechetical  school,  and 
Serapion  by  Peter.  It  is  no  longer  possible  to  identify  Serapion. 
Peter,  on  the  other  hand,  was  bishop  of  Alexandria  and  «a  splendid 
model  of  a  bishop »  from  the  year  300  until  his  death  as  a  martyr 
in  3 1 1  1.  We  still  possess  in  a  Latin  version  a  brief  letter  addressed 
by  Peter  to  his  people  shortly  after  the  outbreak  of  the  persecution 
of  Diocletian  (Febr.  303),  in  order  to  warn  them  against  Meletius, 
the  intruded  bishop  of  Lycopolis 2.  There  is  extant  also  an  epitome 
of  a  treatise  on  penance  (-zp\  peravoiaQ),  of  the  year  306,  both  in 
Greek  and  in  a  Syriac  version.  Its  fourteen  canons  regulate  the  con 
ditions  on  which  those  who  had  fallen  in  the  persecution  might 
return  to  ecclesiastical  communion.  It  is  usually  called  Epistola  canonica  3. 
In  several  of  the  Greek  manuscripts  a  fifteenth  canon  is  added  from 
a  work  of  St.  Peter  on  Easter  (SIQ  TO  -xdaya,  xspt  TOO  Ti(j.oya),  known 
to  us  also  from  other  sources.  In  the  Acts  of  the  Council  of  Ephesus 
(431)  there  appear  three  citations  from  a  work  of  Peter  on  the  Divi 
nity  (xepl  ftzoTYjToc)  4.  Two  other  citations,  extant  in  Syriac  only,  are 
apparently  spurious.  A  fragment  of  his  work  on  the  Coming  of  the 
Savior  (nsp\  TTJQ  acorrjpo^  rjfj.atv  ^ntdiq/jtiaGj  is  quoted  by  Leontius 
of  Byzantium5.  In  his  work  against  the  Monophysites  this  latter 
writer  quotes  two  fragments  from  the  first  book  of  a  work  of  Peter 
written  against  the  pre-existence  and  the  antecedent  sinfulness  of  the 
soul  (nepl  Toil  ftr^ds.  n pound p%£tv  ryv  fiuffiv  fJLTjds.  afAaprqaaaav  TOOTO 
slg  ffdj/jia  ftkqftyvat).  They  are  especially  interesting,  since  they  show 
that  Peter  opposed  with  energy,  not  only  in  preaching  but  in  writing, 
the  errors  of  Origen.  This  is  also  proved  by  seven  Syriac  fragments 
of  a  work  De  resurrectione,  which  rigorously  defends  the  material 
identity  of  the  post-resurrection  body  with  that  we  now  possess. 

Routh,  1.  c.,  iv.  19 — 82,  and  Migne,  PG.,  xviii.  449 — 522.  The  best 
edition  (Greek  and  Syriac)  of  the  Epistola  canonica  is  that  of  P.  de  La- 
gar  de ,  Reliquiae  iuris  eccles.  antiquissimae ,  Leipzig,  1856,  Greek  text 

1  Eus.,  Hist,   eccl.,  ix.   6,   2,   cf.   viii.    13,   7;  vii.   32,   31. 

2  Migne,  PG.,  xviii.   509—510.  3  Ib.,  xviii.  467 — 508. 

4  Ib.,  xviii.   509 — 512.  5  Contra  Nestor,   et  Eutych.,   1.    I. 


pp.  63 — 73,  Syriac  text  pp.  99 — 117.  See  also  Greek  text,  pp.  xlvi — liv. 
In  Pitra,  Analecta  sacra,  iv.  187  — 195  425 — 430,  P.  Martin  collected  and 
translated  other  fragments  (Syriac  and  Armenian).  For  an  English  trans 
lation  of  the  Acts  of  Peter,  the  Canonical  Epistle  and  some  fragments  see 
Hawkins,  in  Ante-Nicene  Fathers  (ed.  Coxe,  1896),  vi.  261 — 285.  —  W.  E. 
Crum,  Texts  attributed  to  Peter  of  Alexandria,  in  Journal  of  Theological 
Studies  (1903),  iv.  387 — 397.  See  Harnack,  Gesch.  der  altchristl.  Literatur, 
i.  443 — 449.  In  his  Fragment  einer  Schrift  des  Martyrerbischofs  Petrus 
von  Alexandrien,  Leipzig,  1901  (Texte  und  Untersuchungen ,  new  series, 
v.  4,  2)  Karl  Schmidt  has  made  known  a  Coptic  text  (with  German  trans 
lation)  of  a  fragment  of  a  rigid  exhortation  to  the  observance  of  the  Sunday 
rest.  He  attributes  it  to  Peter,  who  is  clearly  indicated  in  the  text.  The 
fragment  itself  is  certainly  of  a  later  date ;  it  is  perhaps  the  source  of  the 
famous  Letter  of  Christ  that  was  alleged  to  have  fallen  from  heaven  (Ana 
lecta  Bollandiana  (1901),  xx.  101 — 103). 

4.  PHILEAS  OF  THMUIS.   --  From  his  prison   in  Alexandria,    where  he 
died  a  martyr  about  307,  Phileas,   bishop  of  Thmuis  in  Lower  Egypt,  ad 
dressed  a  letter  to  his  church.     Eusebius  extracted  from  it  a  long  passage 
concerning  the   conflicts  and  triumphs  of  the  martyrs  at  Alexandria  (Hist. 
eccl.,  viii.   10;   cf.  Hier.,  De  viris  ill.,  c.   78).     We  possess  also,  in  a  Latin 
version,  a  letter  written  in  common  by  the  imprisoned  bishops  Hesychius, 
Pachomius,  Theodorus  and  Phileas,  addressed  to  Meletius,  bishop  of  Lyco- 
polis,  who  had  been  conferring  orders  outside  his  own  diocese,  in  contra 
vention  of  the  ecclesiastical  canons  (Routh,  1.  c.,  iv.  83 — in;  Migne,  PG., 
x.   1559 — 1568).    There  is  an  English  translation  of  the  literary  remains  of 
Phileas  by  Salmond,  in  Ante-Nicene  Fathers  (ed.  Coxe,   1896),  vi.  1 6 1  —  164. 

5.  HESYCHIUS.  —  An  Egyptian  Hesychius,  who  may  have  lived  towards 
the  end  of  the  third  century,  undertook  a  critical  revision  of  the  Septuagint 
(Hier.,  Praef.  in  Paral. ;  Comm.  in  Is.  ad  58,   n),  also  a  recension  of  the 
New  Testament  or  at  least  of  the  Gospels  (Hier.,  Praef.  in  Evang.).     We 
cannot  say  that  he  is  identical  with  the  Hesychius  just  mentioned  (cf.  Eus., 
Hist,  eccl.,  viii.   13,  7,  and  the  Introductions  to  the  New  Testament). 

6.  HIERAKAS.  -  -  This   writer   lived   about   300    at  Leontopolis   in   the 
Nile  Delta,  where  he  gathered  about  himself  a  large  community  of  ascetics. 
He  wrote  commentaries  on  the  Scriptures  in  Greek  and  Egyptian  (Coptic), 
a  work  on  the  Hexaemeron,  many  new  Psalms  (^OCAJJIOUC  TtoAXoo?  vsoTepixotk), 
and   perhaps    some    special   works    on    marriage    and    on    the  Holy  Spirit. 
He   carried   to  the  last  extreme  the  allegorism  and  spiritualism  of  Origen, 
rejected   marriage,   denied   the  resurrection  of  the  body,    claimed  that  the 
Holy  Ghost   had  manifested  Himself  in  Melchisedech,    and  excluded  from 
the   kingdom    of  heaven  those  children  who  died  before  attaining  the  use 
of  reason,  even  if  they  had  been  baptized.    Our  only  source  of  information 
concerning  Hierakas   is   the    account    in    Epiphanius  (Haer.  67 ;    cf.  Haer. 
55,  5;  69,  7). 

§  42.     The  so-called  Apostolic  Church-Ordinance. 

This  is  the  title  given  by  its  first  editor,  J.  W.  Bickell  (1843),  to 
a  little  work  which  announces  itself  as  emanating  from  the  twelve 
Apostles.  The  complete  Greek  text  has  reached  us  in  only  one 
manuscript,  probably  of  the  twelfth  century.  The  title  it  offers  is: 
a:  dia.ra.fai  at  dia  KtytjLs.vToc,  xal  xavovsQ  ixxfymaaTixot  TCOV  afitov 
The  first  words,  al  ocara^al  at  oca  KtypevTOQ  xa\,  are 

§    42-      THE    SO-CALLED    APOSTOLIC    CHURCH-ORDINANCE.  l6l 

surely  a  later  addition,  borrowed  from  the  so-called  Apostolic  Con 
stitutions  (§  75,  i).  Apart  from  the  introduction  (cc.  I- — 3)  and  the 
conclusion  (c.  30)  the  work  falls  into  two  parts,  the  first  of  which 
(cc.  4 — 14)  presents  moral  rules,  while  the  second  (cc.  15 — 29)  contains 
legal  ordinances.  The  moral  rules  are  thrown  into  the  form  of  a 
description  of  the  Way  of  Life  and  the  Way  of  Death,  or  rather  of 
the  Way  of  Life.  The  legal  ordinances  deal  with  the  qualities  of  a 
bishop  (c.  1 6),  the  presbyters  (cc.  17  18),  the  lector  (c.  19),  the  deacons 
(cc.  20  22),  the  widow-deaconesses  (c.  21),  also  the  proper  conduct  of 
the  laity  (c.  23),  and  the  question  of  the  participation  of  women  in 
the  liturgical  service  (cc.  24 — 29).  In  both  parts  each  phrase  or 
chapter  is  placed  in  the  mouth  of  an  Apostle  (e.  g.  'fwdyvyg  etTrsv, 
Marftaioz,  etxsy).  The  entire  first  part  or  description  of  the  Way  of 
Life  is  no  more  than  a  slightly  modified  revision  of  the  Two  Ways 
(§  6)  in  the  Didache  (cc.  I,  I  to  4  8).  Harnack  attempted  to  identify 
in  the  second  part  fragments  of  two  earlier  canonical  documents. 
But  Funk  has  shown  that  this  is  impossible.  The  work  was  probably 
composed  towards  the  end  of  the  third  century,  and  with  equal  pro 
bability  in  Egypt.  In  that  land  it  seems  to  have  found  a  more  general 
acceptance  and  diffusion,  and  to  have  attained  the  dignity  of  a  local 
Canon  Law.  With  it  begins  the  Corpus  iuris  canonici  of  the  Coptic, 
Ethiopic  and  Arabic  churches  of  Egypt.  An  ancient  Syriac  version 
and  a  fragment  of  an  ancient  Latin  version  have  reached  us.  Jerome 
mentions1  a  pseudo-Petrine  work  known  as  Liber  iiidicii  (i.  e.  Petri), 
and  Rufinus  knew2  a  Liber  ecclesiasticus,  entitled  Duae  viae  vel 
Indicium  secundum  Pet  rum  (al.  Indicium  Petri].  In  both  places  there 
is  probably  question  of  the  Apostolic  Church-Ordinance.  The  title 
Duae  viae  was  easily  suggested  by  the  contents  of  the  first  part; 
that  of  ludidum  Petri  came  probably  from  the  fact  that  Peter  is 
introduced  as  speaker  oftener  than  the  other  apostles  and  has  the 
last  word  (c.  30). 

For  editions  of  the  Greek  text  of  the  Apostolic  Church-Ordinance  see 
J.  W.  Bickell,  Geschichte  des  Kirchenrechts,  Giessen,  1843,  i-  I07 — I32i 
A.  P.  de  Lagarde,  Reliquiae  iuris  ecclesiastic!  autiquissimae  graece,  Leipzig, 
1856,  pp.  74 — 79;  Pttra ,  Iuris  ecclesiastic!  Graecorum  historia  et  monu- 
menta,  Romae,  1864,  i.  75—88;  A.  Hilgenfeld,  Novum  Testamentum  extra 
canonem  rec. ,  fasc.  iv,  Leipzig,  1866,  pp.  93 — 106;  2.  ed.  1884,  pp.  no 
to  121.  It.  is  also  reprinted  or  re-edited  in  the  editions  of  the  Didache 
(§  6,  4)  by  Philotheos  Brycnnios,  Constantinople,  1883;  Harnack,  Leipzig, 
1884  and  1893;  Ph.  Schaff,  New  York,  1885  1886  1889  (the  latter  gives' 
only  cc.  i — 13  of  the  Apostolic  Church-Ordinance);  F.  X.  Funk,  Tubingen, 
1887;  y.  Mendel  Harris,  Baltimore  and  London,  1887.  --  An  Ethiopic 
text,  with  a  Latin  version,  had  already  been  edited  by  y.  Ludolfus,  Ad  suam 
Historian!  Aethiopicam  antehac  editam  Commentarius,  Frankfurt,  1691, 
314—323.  In  his  Apostolic  Constitutions,  London,  1848,  pp.  i — 30, 
H.  Tattam  published  a  North-Egyptian  (Memphitic,  Bohairic)  text,  with  an 

1   De  viris  ill.,   c.    i.  2  Comm.   in  Symb.   Apost.,   c.   38. 

BARDENHEWER-SHAHAN,  Patrology.  I  i 


English  version.  On  the  basis  of  the  edition  of  Tattam,  P.  Botticher 
(P.  de  Lagarde)  undertook  to  re-translate  this  text  into  Greek,  in  Chr.  C. 
J.  Bunsen,  Analecta  Ante-Nicaena,  London,  1854,  ii,  451—460.  A  South- 
Egyptian  (Theban,  Sahidic)  text  was  published  by  P.  de  Lagarde,  Aegyptiaca, 
Gottingen,  1883,  pp.  239 — 248  (without  a  translation),  and  by  U.  Bouriant, 
in  Recueil  de  travaux  relatifs  a  la  philol.  et  a  1'archeol.  egypt.  et  assyr., 
Paris,  1883 — 1884,  v.  202 — 206  (also  without  a  translation).  It  has  been 
shown  that  the  North-Egyptian  text  is  a  version  of  the  South-Egyptian; 
it  is  still  doubtful  whether  it  be  also  the  parent  of  the  Ethiopic  text. 
An  Arabian  text,  preserved  in  manuscript,  is  not  yet  published.  In  his 
Stromation  Archaiologikon ,  Rome,  1900,  pp.  15—31,  A.  Baumstark  pu 
blished  a  Syriac  text;  similarly  J.  P.  Arendzen,  An  Entire  Syriac  Text  of 
the  Apostolic  Church-Order,  in  Journal  of  Theological  Studies  (1901),  iii. 
^_g0<  jror  the  conclusion  of  a  very  ancient  Latin  text  see  E.  Hauler, 
Didascaliae  apostolorum  fragmenta  Veronensia  Latina,  Leipzig,  1900,  i. 
QJ  —  IOI  ^  Krawutzky ,  Uber  das  altkirchliche  Unterrichtsbuch  «Die 
zwei  Wege  oder  die  Entscheidung  des  Petrus»,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr. 
(1892),  Ixiv.  359 — 445.  A.  Harnack,  Die  Quellen  der  sog.  apostolischen 
Kirchenordnung,  Leipzig,  1886  (Texte  und  Untersuchungen  ii.  5).  Funk, 
Kirchengeschichtl.  Abhandlungen  und  Untersuchungen  (1899),  ii.  236—251. 
Th.  Schermann,  Eine  neue  Handschrift  der  apostolischen  Kirchenordnung, 
in  Oriens  Christianus  (1902),  pp.  398 — 408. 

THE  LETTER  OF  PSENOSiRis.  -  -  This  is  perhaps  the  place  to  insert, 
among  the  writings  of  the  Alexandrines,  the  letter  that  the  priest  Pseno- 
siris  wrote  to  Apollo,  his  brother  in  the  Lord,  notifying  him  that  a  female 
fellow-citizen  (iroXmxrjv),  exiled  by  the  city-prefect  to  the  Oasis,  had  been 
placed  by  him  (Psenosiris)  in  the  hands  of  good  and  faithful  fossores  or 
grave-diggers.  This  letter  was  discovered  among  other  papyri  that  came 
from  Kysis  (Diisch-el-Kala)  in  the  Great  Oasis  and  are  now  in  the  British 
Museum.  They  bear  dates  varying  from  242  to  307.  It  is  coniectured 
that  the  woman  was  a  Christian  exiled  for  her  faith  to  the  Great  Oasis,  in 
which  case  it  must  be  question  either  of  the  persecution  of  Valerian  or 
that  of  Diocletian.  Most  of  those  who  have  written  about  this  document 
decide  for  the  latter  date. 

The  Letter  of  Psenosiris  was  edited  by  A.  Deissmann ,  Ein  Original- 
Dokument  aus  der  diokletianischen  Christenverfolgung ,  Papyrus  713  des 
British  Museum,  Tubingen  and  Leipzig,  1902  ;  Id.,  The  Epistle  of  Pseno 
siris,  an  Original  Document  from  the  Diocletian  Persecution,  London, 
1902  ;  P.  Franchi  de'  Cavalieri ,  Una  lettera  del  tempo  della  persecuzione 
diocleziana,  in  Nuovo  Bullet,  di  archeologia  cristiana  (1902),  viii.  15 — 25; 
A.  Mercati,  in  the  Italian  translation  of  the  present  work,  Rome,  1903,  iii.  ix. 

§  43-     Julius  Africanus. 

I .  HIS  LIFE.  -  -  Sextus  Julius  Africanus,  a  Lybian  \  seems  to 
have  been  an  officer  in  the  expedition  of  Septimius  Severus  against 
the  Osrhoenes  (195).  He  enjoyed  intimate  relations  both  with  the 
royal  house  of  Edessa  and  the  imperial  family.  About  211 — 215  he 
visited  Alexandria  and  attended  the  lectures  of  Heraclas  (§  39,  i)2. 
During  the  reign  of  Alexander  Severus  (222- 235)  he  held  an  office 

1   Suidas,  Lex.   s.  v.   Africanus.  -  Ens.,   Hist,   eccl.,   vi.   31,   2. 

§    43-     JULIUS    AFRICANUS.  163 

of  distinction  at  Emmaus-Nicopolis  in  the  plain  of  Philistia1.  Later 
Syriac  writers  have  been  misled  into  making  him  a  bishop  of  Em- 
maus;  he  does  not  seem  to  have  been  even  a  presbyter.  He  died 
after  240  (cf.  §  39,  10). 

H.  Gelzer,  Sextus  Julius  Africanus  und  die  byzantinische  Chronographie, 
Leipzig,  1880 — 1898,  i.  i — n. 

2.  THE  CHRONOGRAPHIA.  THE  KsaroL  -  -  His  most  important 
work  was  a  universal  chronicle  in  five  books  completed  in  221  and 
entitled  Ckroncgraphia  (ypovoypatpiai)  2.  Though  none  of  its  five  books 
is  intact,  more  or  less  lengthy  fragments  of  all  have  reached  us. 
The  purpose  of  Africanus  was  to  correlate  and  harmonize  Jewish  and 
Christian  history  with  the  history  of  the  Gentile  world.  He  found  in 
the  biblical  dates  the  sure  criterion  by  which  to  judge  the  historicity 
of  the  profane  dates  offered  in  the  current  manuals  of  chronology. 
The  entire  history  of  the  world,  according  to  Africanus,  covers  a 
period  of  six  thousand  years;  the  first  three  thousand  are  closed  by 
the  death  of  Phaleg,  « because  in  his  days  the  earth  was  divided » 
(Gen.  x.  25).  The  next  three  thousand  years  will  close  with  the  end 
of  the  world;  half-way  in  the  last  millennium,  i.  e.  in  the  year  5500, 
the  Son  of  God  became  man.  This  first  of  Christian  world-chronicles 
has  never  lacked  zealous  admirers,  and  industrious  use  .has  con 
stantly  been  made  of  it.  It  rendered  substantial  service  to  the  Father 
of  Church  History;  in  modified  and  often  even  in  corrupted  forms 
it  has  dominated  all  Byzantine  historiography.  -  -  He  dedicated  to 
Alexander  Severus 3  an  extensive  encyclopaedia  of  the  natural  sciences, 
medicine,  magic,  agriculture,  naval  and  military  warfare,  and  gave 
it  the  curious  title  of  « Embroidered  Girdles »  fxsffroij.  Photius 
says4  that  it  included  fourteen  books,  but  Suidas5  gives  the  number 
of  books  as  twenty-four.  Of  this  encyclopaedia  many  fragments,  some 
of  them  not  unimportant,  have  reached  us,  especially  through  later 
and  more  special  works,  e.  g.  the  collection  of  Greek  tacticians,  the 
compilation  of  excerpts  from  writers  on  agriculture  known  as  Geoponica, 
and  the  manual  of  veterinary  science  known  as  Hippiatrica.  While 
the  vulgar  superstition  they  exhibit,  and  the  obscenities  that  swarm 
in  the  fragment  on  Aphrodisiac  secrets,  are  well-calculated  to  lessen 
our  respect  for  Africanus,  they  do  not  justify  us  in  suspecting  the 
authenticity  of  his  works,  or  attempting  to  divide  the  authorship  of 
the  xsffToi  and  the  Chronographia. 

The  existing  collections  of  the  fragments  of  the  Chronographia  (Mignc, 
PG.,  x.  63 — 94;  Routh ,  Reliquiae  Sacrae  [2]  ii.  238 — 309)  are  unsatis 
factory.  A  new  collection  is  expected  from  If.  Gelzer  (1.  c.).  The  first 

1   Sync.   Chronogr.  ed.   Dindorf,   i.   676.  *  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.   31,   2. 

3  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.   31,    i;   cf.   Geoponica,  1.    i,  praef. :  xsffTol  ^  i:a.pddo$a, 

4  Bibl.  Cod.   34.  5  Lex.,  1.  c. 

1 1  * 


part  of  this  work  of  Gelzer  deals  with  the  Chronography  of  Africanus  (supple 
mentary  matter  injahrb.  f.  prot.  Theologie  [1881],  vii.  376— 378);  the  second 
part  (1885 — 1898)  treats  of  his  Greek  and  Latin,  Syriac  and  Armenian 
successors.  There  is  no  satisfactory  collection  of  the  fragments  of  the  «Em- 
broidered  Girdles ».  They  are  enumerated  by  Gelzer ;  1.  c.,  i.  12  —  17,  and 
Preuschen,  in  Harnack,  Gesch.  der  altchristl.  Lit.,  i.  508—511.  There  is 
an  English  translation  of  the  literary  remains  of  Africanus  by  Salmond,  in 
Ante-Nicene  Fathers  (ed.  Coxe,  1886),  vi.  146 — 153. 

3.  LETTERS.    DOUBTFUL  AND  SPURIOUS  WORKS.  —  An  entire  letter 
of  Africanus  to  Origen  has  been  preserved,  in  which  he  opposes  the 
genuineness  and  canonicity  of  the  history  of  Susanna  in  the  Book  of 
Daniel  (§  39,  10),  also  fragments  of  another  to  a  certain  Aristides1  in 
which,  on  the  basis  of  ancient  traditions,  he  undertakes  to  harmonize 
the  apparent  antilogies  in  the  genealogies  of  Our  Lord  as    given  in 
St.  Matthew  and  St.  Luke.     He  makes  Jacob  (Mt.  i.    16)  the   natural 
father,  and  Heli  (Lk.  iii.   23)  the  legal  father  of  Joseph.    Both  letters 
are   mentioned   by   Eusebius2,    and    are    eloquent   monuments    of  an 
acute  and  searching  criticism  far  beyond   the  ordinary  contemporary 
level.    It  is  very  doubtful  that  he  wrote  commentaries  on  the  Gospels 
or  on  the  New  Testament,  as  the  Syriac  writers  (Dionysius  Bar  Salibi 
and  Ebedjesu)    maintain.     It   is  owing    to    an   interchange    of  names 
(Africanus   for  Aphroditiamus)   that  a  ridiculous  story  of  miraculous 
occurrences  in  Persia   at   the   time  of  the   birth  of  Christ   has   been 
attributed  to  our  chronographer 3.    Nor  can  he  be  the  author  of  the 
Passio  S.  Symphorosae  et  septein  filiorum  eius  4. 

Both  letters  of  Africanus  are  in  Routh,  1.  c.,  ii.  225 — 237.  See  Fr. 
Spitta,  Der  Brief  des  Julius  Africanus  an  Aristides,  kritisch  untersucht  und 
hergestellt,  Halle,  1877.  For  the  writings  falsely  attributed  to  Africanus 
see  in  particular  Gelzer,  1.  c.,  i.  18  f.  (Jahrb.  f.  prot.  Theol.  vii.  376  f.); 
Preuschen,  1.  c.,  p.  513.  There  is  an  English  translation  of  the  letter  to 
Origen  in  Ante-Nicene  Fathers,  (ed.  Coxe,  1896),  vi.  385  f. 

4.  ALEXANDER  OF  JERUSALEM.  --  Alexander,  the  founder  of  the  theo 
logical  library  of  Jerusalem  (§  37),  was  for  a  brief  period  bishop  in  Cappa- 
docia  (Eus.,  Hist.  eccl.  vi.   n,   r — 2).    About  212  he  became  coadjutor  to 
the  aged  bishop  Narcissus  of  Jerusalem  (ib.  vi.  8,  7),    and  succeeded  him 
shortly  after  in  that  office  which  he  held  until  his  glorious  death  as  a  martyr 
in  250    (ib.  vi.  39,    2 — 3).     Eusebius   mentions   many   of  his   letters;    one 
was  written    from   his  prison   in  Cappadocia  to  the  Christians   of  Antioch, 
congratulating  them  on  the  choice  of  their  new  bishop,  Asclepiades  (ib.  vi. 
n,  5  —  6).    Another  was  written  at  Jerusalem,  in  the  life-time  of  Narcissus, 
as  an  exhortation  to  the  Christians   of  Antinonia  in  Egypt  (ib.  vi.   n,  3). 
A  third   letter   was  written   to  Origen  (ib.  vi.   14,  8 — 9).     Both  Alexander 
and   bishop  Theoctistus    of  Csesarea   wrote    to   bishop  Demetrius    of  Alex 
andria   in   defence  of  lay-preaching    (ib.  vi.   19,   17  —  18).     St.  Jerome  (De 
viris  ill.,  c.  62)  seems  to  have  known  another  letter  of  Alexander  to  Demetrius 
concerning  Origen's  ordination   to   the   priesthood.     For   the  «testimonia» 
concerning  Alexander  see  Migne,  PG.,  x.   203 — 206  and  Routh,    1.  c. ,    ii. 

1  Migne,  PG.,  x.   51  — 64.  2  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.   31,    i   3. 

3  Migne,  PG.,  x.   97—108.  4  Ib.,  x.   93—98. 


159  —  179;  Harnack,  1.  c.,  i.  505  —  507:  cf.  ii.  i,  221  —  223.  For  an  English 
translation  of  the  fragments  of  Alexander  see  Salmoitd  ,  in  Ante-Nicene 
Fathers  (ed.  Coxe,  1896),  vi.  153  —  154. 

5.  BERYLLUS  OF  BOSTRA.  --  About  244  Origen  converted  this  bishop 
from  Monarchianism  to  the  teachings  of  the  Church  (§  39,  7).  Beryllus 
left  letters  and  treatises  (Eus.,  Hist.  eccl.  vi.  20,  2),  also  letters  to  Origen 
(Hier.,  De  viris  ill.,  c.  60). 

§  44.     Paul  of  Samosata,  Malchion  of  Antioch,  Lucian  of  Samosata. 

i.  PAUL  OF  SAMOSATA.  -  -  He  was  a  «ducenarius»  of  Zenobia, 
queen  of  Palmyra,  and  from  260  held  the  see  of  Antioch.  Apparently 
he  committed  to  writing  his  teaching  that  Christ  was  by  nature  only 
an  ordinary  man1.  Vincent  of  Lerins2  was  acquainted  with  «Opu- 
scula»  of  Paul,  and  a  later  Greek  writer  has  left  us  some  Christo- 
logical  fragments  of  his  discourses  to  Sabinus  (npbs  Sajftvov 

Mai,  Script,  vet.  nova  coll.  (1833),  vii.  i  68  sq.  ;  Routh,  Reliquiae  Sacrae 
(2)  iii.  329  f.  See  G.  D.  Rossini  ,  L'impresa  di  Palmira  e  Paolo  Samo- 
sateno,  in  Miscellanea  di  Storia  Eccles.  (1902  —  1903),  i.  109  —  133. 

2.  MALCHION  OF  ANTIOCH.  -  -  In  consequence  of  the  heresy  of 
Paul  three  synods  were  held  at  Antioch  from  264  —  269.     It  was  only 
in  the  last  of  these  synods  that  Malchion,  a  presbyter  of  Antioch  and 
a  famous   teacher  of  rhetoric  in  that  city,    was  able    to  convict   the 
cunning  sophist  and  to  tear  the  mask  from  him.  We  have  still  some 
fragments  of  the  discussion  between  Paul  and  Malchion,  taken  down 
by  shorthand  writers3.    Paul  was  deposed  and  excommunicated;  in  a 
long  encyclical  letter  the  synod  made  known  to  the  entire  Catholic 
Church   the    history   and    the    conclusion    of   the  whole   affair.     This 
encyclical  letter,   according  to  Jerome4,   was  the  work  of  Malchion; 
some  fragments  of  it  are  extant  in  Eusebius5   and    in  other  writers. 

,  For  the  remnants  of  the  encyclical  and  the  discussion  see  Migne,  PG. 
x.  247  —  260,  and  Routh3  1.  c.  iii.  300  —  316.  Another  fragment  of  the 
discussion  is  in  Pitra,  Analecta  sacra  iii.  600  f.  ;  cf.  the  Syriac  fragments, 
ib.  iv.  183-  1  86  423  —  425.  There  is  reason  to  doubt  the  genuineness  of  a 
letter  written  to  Paul  «before  his  deposition*,  by  six  bishops:  Hymenaeus 
(of  Jerusalem),  Theophilus,  Theotecnus  (of  Csesarea  in  Palestine),  Maximus 
(of  Bostra),  Proclus  and  Bolanus  (Mansi,  Ss.  Concil.  Coll.  i.  1033  —  1040; 
Routh,  1.  c.  ,  iii.  289  —  299).  These  six  bishops  are  mentioned  by  Eu 
sebius  (Hist,  eccl.,  vii.  30,  2)  among  those  who  forwarded  the  encyclical 
letter.  Cf.  P.  Pape  ,  Die  Synoden  von  Antiochien  264  —  269  (Progr.), 
Berlin,  1903.  For  an  English  translation  of  the  fragments  of  Malchion  see 
Salmondy  in  Ante-Nicene  Fathers  (ed.  Coxe,  1896),  vi.  168  —  172. 

3.  LUCIAN  OF  SAMOSATA.  --  Lucian,  a  native  of  Samosata,  pres 
byter  of  Antioch  and    founder  of  the  Antiochene  exegetical  school, 
shared  the  views  of  Paul  and  was  probably  excommunicated  at  the 

1  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vii.   27,   2.  2  Common,   c.   25,   al.   35. 

3  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vii.   29,   2.  4  De  viris  ill.,   c.    71. 

5  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vii.   30. 

1 66  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

same  time  as  the  latter.  Although  he  returned  to  the  communion 
of  the  Church,  he  did  not  cease  to  teach  a  decidedly  subordinationist 
theology,  and  is  the  true  father  of  Arianism.  His  martyrdom  at 
Nicomedia  (Jan.  7.,  312)  made  reparation  for  his  want  of  conformity 
to  the  teachings  of  the  Church1.  Like  Hesychius  (§  41,  5)  Lucian 
made  a  critical  revision  of  the  Septuagint  and  a  recension  of  the 
text  of  the  New  Testament,  or  at  least  of  the  Gospels2.  In  the 
fourth  century  this  revision  of  the  Septuagint  was  still  in  general 
use  through  all  the  churches  from  Antioch  to  Constantinople  3 ;  manu 
scripts  of  it  have  survived  to  our  day.  Jerome4  had  read  other 
works  of  Lucian :  De  fide  lib e Hi  and  Breves  ad  nonnullos  e pistol ae. 
The  Chronicon  Paschale*  cites  the  conclusion  of  a  letter  of  Lucian 
sent  from  Nicomedia  to  the  Christians  of  Antioch.  The  statement 
of  Athanasius6  and  others  that  a  profession  of  faith  adopted  by  an 
Antiochene  synod  in  341  was  the  work  of  Lucian,  is  very  questionable. 

The  edition  of  the  Pentateuch  and  the  historical  books  of  the  Jewish 
canon,  published  at  Gottingen  in  1883  by  P.  de  Lagarde ,  was  based  on 
codices  that  C.  Vercellone  had  recognized  as  correlated,  and  that  A.  M. 
Ceriani  and  Fr.  Field  had  shown  to  be  copies  of  Lucian's  revision  of  the 
Septuagint.  The  Septuagint  text  in  the  Complutensian  Polyglot  is  based 
on  two  of  these  codices.  For  more  special  information  see  the  manuals 
of  Introduction  to  the  Old  and  New  Testament.  The  fragments  of  other 
works  of  Lucian  are  in  Routh,  1.  c.,  iv.  i — 17.  Among  them  are  an 
Apology  for  Christianity,  prepared  at  Nicomedia  on  the  eve  of  his  death, 
and  taken  from  Rufinus'  paraphrase  of  the  Church  History  of  Eusebius 
(ix.  6);  also  an  oral  exposition  of  Job  ii.  9 — 10,  taken  from  the  commen 
tary  on  Job  by  Julian  of  Halicarnassus.  The  hypothesis  of  F.  Kattenbusch 
(Das  apostolische  Symbol,  Leipzig,  1894,  i.  252—273  392—395)  that  the 
baptismal  symbol  of  the  Apostolic  Constitutions  (vii.  41)  is  the  work  of 
Lucian,  is  most  probably  untenable.  For  Lucian  see  in  general,  Acta 
SS.  Jan.,  Venice,  1734,  i.  357—365,  and  Harnack,  Gesch.  der  altchristl. 
Lit.  i.  526—531;  cf.  Stokes,  in  Diet,  of  Christ.  Biography,  London,  1882, 
iii.  748 — 749,  also  (Cardinal)  Newman's  «History  of  the  Arians». 

§  45.     Pamphilus  of  Csesarea  and  the  Dialogus  de  recta  in  Deum  fide. 

i.  PAMPHILUS.  -  -  The  biography  of  St.  Pamphilus  in  three  books, 
by  his  disciple  and  friend  Eusebius,  has  perished;  only  references 
to  it  and  some  quotations  are  known7.  But  in  his  Church  History 
and  in  his  two  works  on  the  martyrs  of  Palestine,  Eusebius  has  handed 
down  to  posterity  tributes  of  affectionate  remembrance  for  Pamphilus. 
He  was  born  of  noble  parents  at  Berytus  in  Phoenicia,  studied  theo 
logy  §  at  Alexandria  under  Pierius  (§41,  2),  took  up  his  permanent 
residence  at  Caesarea  in  Palestine,  was  ordained  priest,  opened  in 

1  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  viii.    13,   2;  ix.  6,   3.  2  Hier>  praef-   in  Evangi 

*  Hier.,  Praef.  in  Paral.  *  De  viris  ill.,   c.    77. 

Migne,  PG.,  xcii.  689.  6  Ep.  de  syn.  c.   23. 

Eus.,  De  mart.  Palestinae,   c.    II,   3;   Hier.,  Adv.   Rufin.,   i.   9. 
8  Phot.,  Bibl.  Cod.    118    119. 


that  city  a  theological  school,  and  in  the  persecution  of  Maximinus 
suffered  martyrdom  there  by  decapitation  (309),  apparently  after  a 
long  and  tedious  imprisonment.  The  greatest  of  his  literary  merits 
is  the  zeal  he  displayed  for  the  enrichment  and  enlargement  of  the 
library  of  Csesarea  (§  37).  While  in  prison  he  wrote,  with  the  help 
of  his  friend  Eusebius,  an  apology  for  Origen  (aTroAofia  bxkp  "Qptyivouc,) 
in  five  books  to  which,  after  the  martyr's  death,  Eusebius  added 
a  sixth.  The  work  was  dedicated  to  the  confessors  in  the  mines  or 
quarries  of  Palestine,  and  was  an  attempt  to  defend  the  theology  of 
the  Alexandrine  from  the  charge  of  heterodoxy  that  many  brought 
against  it.  Only  the  first  of  its  six  books  has  been  preserved,  and 
that  in  a  not  very  reliable  version  by  Rufinus  of  Aquileja.  Pho- 
tius  speaks  about  the  whole  work  1.  The  latter  says  quite  posi 
tively  that  Pamphilus  composed  the  first  five  books2.  In  view  of 
this  testimony  the  statement  of  St.  Jerome3  that  the  Arian  Eusebius 
was  the  true  author  of  the  work,  is  manifestly  inexact  and  awakens 
a  suspicion  of  bias.  Gennadius  wrongly  says  4  that  Rufinus  translated 
a  work  of  Pamphilus  Adversum  mathematico s ;  he  simply  misunderstood 
the  reasons  given  by  Rufinus5  for  his  translation  of  the  first  book 
of  the  Apology.  Finally,  in  his  biography  of  Pamphilus,  Eusebius 
made  mention  of  letters  of  Pamphilus  to  his  friends6. 

For  the  «testimonia  antiquorum»  concerning  Pamphilus  see  Preuschen, 
in  Harnack,  Gesch.  der  altchristl.  Lit.  i.  543  —  550.  The  Passio  Ss.  Pamphili 
et  sociorum  (Migne,  PG.  x.  1533  — 1550)  is  a  fragment  of  the  larger  work 
of  Eusebius  on  the  Martyrs  of  Palestine,  and  has  been  re-edited  by  H.  De- 
lehayc,  in  Analecta  Bollandiana  (1897),  xvi.  129 — 139.  The  translation  by 
Rufinus  of  the  first  book  of  the  Apology  for  Origen  is  found  in  the  edi 
tions  of  Origen  (Migne ,  PG.,  xvii.  521 — 616).  It  is  also  (incomplete)  in 
Routh ,  Reliquiae  Sacrae  (2)  iii.  485  —  512;  iv.  339 — 392.  For  traces  of 
biblical  manuscripts  written  or  corrected  by  Pamphilus  cf.  W.  Bousset,  in 
Texte  und  Untersuchungen  (1894),  xi.  4,  45  —  73. 

2.  DIALOGUS  DE  RECTA  IN  DEUM  FIDE.  —  There  have  come  down 
to  us  in  Greek  and  Latin  texts,  under  the  name  of  Origen,  five  dia 
logues  against  the  Gnostics.  Their  Greek  title  is  dial^ic,  'Ada/jtavTtou 
roil)  xai  'Qptflvoug  xspi  r^c  SIQ  ttsov  opftiJQ  "xiGizto^,  while  in  the  only 
manuscript  that  has  reached  us  of  the  Latin  version  made  by  Rufinus 
they  are  called  Libri  Adamantii  Origenis  adversus  haereticos  numero 
quinque.  In  these  dialogues  Adamantius  appears  as  the  protagonist 
of  Christian  faith.  In  the  first  two  he  attacks  the  doctrine  of  three 
(or  two)  principles  (apyjj.i)  as  held  by  the  Marcionites,  Megethius  and 
Marcus.  In  the  last  three  dialogues  he  combats  the  theses  of  Marinus, 
a  follower  of  Bardesanes.  Marinus  had  maintained  that  the  devil  or 

1  Bibl.  Cod.    1 1 8. 

2  Cf.  Ens.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.   33,  4,  and  Hier.,  De  viris  ill.,   c.   75. 

3  Adv.  Rufin.,  i.   8 ;   al.  4  De  viris  ill.,   c.    17. 
5  Apol.,  i.    ii.              6  Hier.,  Adv.  Ruf.,  i.   Q. 

1 68  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

evil  could  not  have  been  created  by  God,  that  the  Logos  could  not 
take  a  human  body,  that  the  body  could  not  rise  again.  In  the 
fourth  dialogue  he  interrupts  for  a  while  the  discussion  with  Marinus, 
in  order  to  dispute  with  Droserius  and  Valens,  followers  of  Valentinian, 
concerning  the  origin  of  evil.  The  Christian  disputants  had  chosen  as 
arbiter  Eutropius,  a  learned  heathen  philosopher;  he  considers  him 
self  obliged  to  yield  the  palm  of  victory  to  Adamantius.  The  author 
of  these  dialogues  is  evidently  very  well-skilled  in  dialectic  and  theo 
logy.  Zahn  has  shown  by  a  comparison  of  the  Greek  with  the  Latin 
text  that  in  general  the  latter,  though  a  translation,  represents  with 
fidelity  the  original  work,  while  very  plainly  the  Greek  text  has  been 
worked  over  quite  thoroughly.  Internal  evidence  shows  that  the  work 
was  composed  about  300 — 3 1 3 ;  the  revision  must  have  taken  place 
between  330  and  337.  The  author  can  no  longer  be  recognized,  but 
it  is  probable  that  he  lived  at  or  near  Antioch.  The  erroneous 
attribution  of  the  work  to  Origen,  accepted  by  Basil  the  Great  and 
Gregory  of  Nazianzus1,  is  owing  to  a  confusion  of  the  Church's 
theological  protagonist  with  the  author  of  the  dialogue.  Very  pro 
bably,  indeed,  the  latter  meant  to  indicate  by  the  name  Adamantius 
no  other  but  Origen  (cf.  §  39,  i).  At  the  same  time  his  inten 
tion  was  to  put  forth  the  famous  Alexandrine  only  as  sponsor  for 
the  doctrine  of  the  dialogue,  not  to  designate  him  as  the  author  of 
the  work. 

The  Greek  text  has  come  down  in  seven  (according  to  von  Bakhuyzen] 
codices  that  go  back  to  a  single  archetype.  The  editio  princeps  is  that 
of  J.  R.  Wetstein,  Basle,  1674,  reprinted  in  later  editions  of  Origen  (Migne, 
PG..  xi.  1711—1884).  The  Latin  version  was  first  published  by  C.  P. 
Caspari,  Kirchenhistorische  Anecdota,  Christiania,  1883,  i.  1  —  129  (cf.  iii— iv). 
For  further  details  see  Th.  Zahn,  in  Zeitschr.  f.  Kirchengesch.  (1887  —  1888), 
ix.  193 — 239,  and  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons  (1892),  ii.  2,  419—426. 
There  is  a  new  edition  by  W.  H.  van  dc  Sande  Bakhuyzen,  Leipzig,  1901, 
in  Die  griechischen  christlichen  Schriftsteller  der  ersten  drei  Jahrhunderte. 

§  46.     The  Didascalia  apostolorum. 

Even  before  the  Apostolic  Church-Ordinance  (§  42)  had  been 
adopted  in  Egypt,  there  circulated  in  Syria  or  Palestine  a  pseudo- 
apostolic  work  of  similar  character,  but  much  larger  in  size.  Its 
subject-matter  was,  likewise,  Christian  morality,  the  constitution  of 
the  Church,  and  Christian  discipline.  The  original  Greek  text  has 
apparently  perished.  In  1854  P.  de  Lagarde  edited  an  ancient 
Syriac  version,  and  recently  Hauler  has  made  known  notable  frag 
ments  of  an  early  Latin  version.  These  fragments  confirm  the  con 
clusion  of  Funk  that  in  general  the  Syriac  version,  apart  from  its 
peculiar  division  into  chapters,  faithfully  represents  the  original  Greek. 
The  title  (lacking  in  the  Latin  version)  reads  in  Syriac:  « Didascalia, 

1  Philocal.  Orig.   c.   24,   8. 

§    46.      THE    DIDASCALIA    APOSTOLORUM.  1 69 

i.  e.  the  Catholic  Doctrine  of  the  Twelve  Apostles  and  holy  disciples 
of  our  Redeemer ».  It  opens  with  general  exhortatory  advice  to  Christ 
ians  (c.  I  in  Syriac)  and  more  particularly  to  those  in  certain  states, 
especially  married  persons  (cc.  2 — 3).  Then  follow  provisions  con 
cerning  the  qualifications  for  the  office  of  bishop,  his  duties  and  his 
rights  (cc.  4 — 9),  on  lawsuits  among  Christians  (cc.  10 — n),  on  the 
liturgical  assemblies  (cc.  12 — 13),  on  widows,  deacons  and  deacones 
ses  (cc.  14 — 1 6),  on  the  care  of  the  poor  and  in  particular  of 
orphans  (cc.  17 — 18),  on  the  martyrs  (cc.  19 — 20),  on  fasting  (c.  21), 
on  the  discipline  of  children  (c.  22).  The  last  chapters  contain  a 
warning  against  heresies  (cc.  23 — 25)  and  against  Jewish  or  Judaiz- 
ing  practices  (c.  26).  There  is  no  inner  cohesion  between  the 
chapters;  even  in  each  chapter  the  thought  of  the  writer  does  not 
progress  in  an  orderly  way.  According  to  c.  24  the  work  was 
composed  by  the  Apostles  at  Jerusalem ,  on  the  occasion  of  the 
apostolic  council  and  during  the  first  days  after  the  same.  Funk 
has  shown  that  it  was  written  in  Syria  or  Palestine  during  the  first 
half  of  the  third  century.  The  sources  at  the  disposition  of  the 
writer  were  the  Holy  Scriptures  (in  c.  7  he  even  quotes  the  story  of 
the  woman  taken  in  adultery,  John  vii.  53  to  viii.  n),  the  Didache, 
the  collection  of  the  Ignatian  Epistles ,  the  Dialogue  of  Justin  the 
Martyr,  the  apocryphal  Gospel  of  Peter,  the  fourth  book  of  the 
Sibylline  Oracles,  and  perhaps  the  « Memorabilia »  of  Hegesippus.  The 
work  was  highly  esteemed  and  much  used  in  Syria  and  Palestine. 
Early  in  the  fifth  century  it  was  worked  over  in  Syria  at  considerable 
length,  and  took  its  actual  shape  in  the  first  six  books  of  the  Apo 
stolic  Constitutions  (§75,  i). 

The  Syriac  version  was  edited  from  a  codex  of  the  ninth  or  tenth 
century  by  P.  Botticher  (P.  dc  Lagardc),  Didascalia  Apostolorum  syriace, 
Leipzig,  1854.  At  the  same  time,  in  the  work  of  Chr.  C.  J.  Bunsen, 
Analecta  Ante-Nicaena,  London,  1854,  ii,  Botticher  undertook  to  recon 
struct  the  original  Greek  of  the  Didascalia  (225 — 338:  Didascalia  purior). 
For  this  purpose  he  used  the  Syriac  version  and  the  first  six  books  of  the 
Apostolic  Constitutions ;  the  six  books  were  so  printed  as  to  distinguish  by 
different  kinds  of  type  the  original  text  from  the  additions  to  it  (45  —  2245. 
In  many  details,  however,  both  these  recensions  of  Botticher  are  untrust 
worthy-  cf.  Funk,  Die  Apostolischen  Konstitutionen ,  Rottenburg,  1891, 
pp.  40 — 50.  On  Didascaliae  apostolorum  fragmenta  Veronensia  Latina 
ed.  E.  Hauler,  Leipzig,  1900,  i,  see  Funk,  1.  c. ,  pp.  28—75.  For  tne 
dependence  of  the  Didascalia  on  the  Didache  see  C.  Holzhcy,  in  Compte 
rendu  du  IVe  Congres  scientifique  internat.  des  Catholiques,  Fribourg 
(vSwitzerland),  1898,  Section  I,  249—277;  on  its  relations  to  the  Ignatian 
Epistles  see  Holzhey ,  in  TheoJ.  Quartalschr.  (1898),  Ixxx.  380—396. 
F.  X.  Funk,  La  date  de  la  Didascalie  des  Apotres,  in  Revue  d'histoire 
ecclesiastique  (1901),  ii.  798  —  809;  here  he  assigns  it  to  the  second  half 
of  the  third  century.  P.  Corssen ,  Zur  lateinischen  Didascalia  Aposto 
lorum,  in  Zeitschr.  fur  neutestamentl.  Wissensch.  (1900),  i.  339—343. 
In  the  Canoniste  Contemporain  (1900 — 1902)  F.  Nau  gives  a  French 


version  of  the  Didascalia  (reprinted,  Paris,  1902).  A.  Jakoby ,  Ein  bisher 
unbeachteter  apokrypher  Bericht  iiber  die  Taufe  Jesu,  nebst  Beitragen 
zur  Geschichte  der  Didascalia  der  zwolf  Apostel,  und  Erlauterungen  zu 
den  Darstelhmgen  der  Taufe  Jesu,  Straftburg,  1902;  C.  Holzhey ,  Dio- 
nysius  der  Grofte  und  die  Didascalia,  in  Theol.-praktische  Monatschr. 
(1901),  xi.  515—523;  cf.  §  40,  4.  The  Didascalia  Apostolorum,  edited 
from  a  Mesopotamian  manuscript  with  various  readings  and  collations  from 
other  mss.  by  M.  Dunlop  Gibson,  I:  Syriac  text;  II:  an  English  version 
(Horae  Semiticae),  Cambridge,  1903.  See  the  critique  of  Funk,  in  Theol. 
Quartalschr.  (1903),  Ixxxv.  195 — 202.  A.  Baumstark ,  Die  Urgestalt  der 
arabischen  Didascalia  der  Apostel,  in  Oriens  Christianus  (1903),  pp.  201 
to  208.  For  a  German  translation  and  commentary  see  Achelis  and  Flem- 
ming,  Die  syrische  Didascalia,  iibersetzt  und  erklart,  in  Texte  und  Unter- 
suchungen,  Leipzig,  1904,  x,  2,  vm — 388.  Funk  has  also  published  what 
will  in  all  likelihood  ever  remain  the  standard  edition  of  the  « Didascalia 
et  Constitutiones  Apostolorum »,  2  voll.,  Paderborn,  1905. 

§  47.     St.  Gregory  Thaumaturgus  (the  Wonder- Worker). 

I.  HIS  LIFE.  —  In  his  panegyric  on  Origen  (cc.  5 — 6)  St.  Gregory 
gives  us  reliable  information  concerning  his  own  early  life.  Other 
details  are  gathered  from  Eusebius,  St.  Basil  the  Great,  St.  Jerome, 
Rufinus  and  other  writers.  His  life  in  Greek  by  St.  Gregory  of 
Nyssa  *  is  of  little  historical  value  because  of  its  highly  legendary 
character.  Untrustworthy,  too,  is  an  ancient  anonymous  life  in 
Syriac,  that  has  come  down  to  us  in  a  sixth-century  manuscript, 
and  is  in  its  contents  very  closely  related  to  the  Greek  life.  Both 
these  lives  may  go  back  to  an  earlier  Greek  original  (Ryssel),  or 
both  may  represent  the  same  stage  of  oral  tradition  (Koetschau). 
Gregory,  in  youth  called  Theodore2,  was  born  about  213  at  Neo- 
caesarea  in  Pontus,  of  a  very  noble  heathen  family.  He  devoted 
himself  to  the  study  of  rhetoric  and  Roman  law.  In  order  to 
perfect  themselves  in  the  latter  study,  both  he  and  his  younger 
brother  Athenodorus  were  on  the  point  of  entering  the  law  schools 
of  Berytus  in  Phoenicia,  when  domestic  circumstances  altered  per 
force  their  resolution,  and  they  betook  themselves  to  Csesarea  in 
Palestine.  Here,  very  probably  in  233,  they  became  acquainted  with 
Origen,  and  were  fascinated  by  his  teaching.  Gradually  all  thought 
of  Berytus  and  jurisprudence  vanished  from  the  minds  of  the  im 
pressionable  youths.  They  clung  thenceforth  to  the  admirable  teacher 
who  had  won  them  over  to  the  studies  of  philosophy  and  theology, 
and  at  the  same  time  converted  them  to  Jesus  Christ.  Eusebius 
tells  us3  that  Gregory  and  his  brother  spent  five  years  at  Caesarea. 
On  their  separation  from  Origen,  in  238,  the  former  delivered  a 
public  panegyric  or  formal  profession  of  gratitude  in  the  presence  of 

1  Migne,  PG.,  xlvi.   893-958-  2  Ens.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.  30.  3  Ib. 

§    47-      ST-    GREGORY    THAUMATURGUS    (THE    WONDER-WORKER).         I/ 1 

his  master1.  Shortly  afterwards  they  were  both  made  bishops  in 
Pontus 2 ;  Gregory  in  particular,  became  the  first  bishop  of  his  native 
city  of  Neoc^esarea.  The  two  biographies  already  referred  relate 
a  long  series  of  miraculous  happenings,  to  which  Gregory  owes  his 
later  title  of  Wonder-Worker  (o  ftaufjLatoupfOQ).  This  very  early  growth 
of  legend  testifies  more  forcibly  than  any  historical  document  could 
to  his  uncommonly  superior  personality  and  his  far-reaching  successful 
labors.  Gregory  and  Athenodorus  took  part  in  the  Antiochene  synod 
(264 — 265)  that  condemned  Paul  of  Samosata3;  they  may  also  have 
been  present  at  the  two  following  synods  held  for  the  same  purpose4. 
Suidas  says5  that  Gregory  died  in  the  reign  of  Aurelian  (270 — 275). 
Before  his  death  he  had  completely  converted  his  native  city,  and  all 
Pontus  continued  to  reverence  his  memory6. 

The  Syriac  biography  of  Gregory  was  first  published  in  a  German 
version  by  V.  Ryssel }  in  Theol.  Zeitschr.  aus  der  Schweiz  (1894),  xi.  228 
to  254.  Later,  the  Syriac  text  was  published  from  the  same  codex,  by 
P.  Bedjan,  in  Acta  martyrum  et  sanctorum  (1896),  vi.  83 — 106.  For  the 
relations  between  the  Greek  and  Syriac  text  see  P.  Koetschau,  in  Zeitschr. 
fur  wissenschaftl.  Theol.  (1898),  xli.  211  —  250,  and  H.  Hilgcnfeld,  ib., 
452 — 456.  For  the  latest  researches  on  the  life  of  Gregory  cf.  Ryssel, 
Gregorius  Thaumaturgus,  Leipzig,  1880,  pp.  i — 22,  and  Koetschau,  in  his 
edition  of  the  Panegyric  on  Origen ,  Freiburg,  1894  (Sammlung  ausgew. 
kirchen-  und  dogmengeschichtl.  Quellenschriften  9),  pp.  v—  xxi. 

2.  LITERARY  LABORS.   -  -  Taken  up  with  pastoral  cares,  Gregory 
wrote  but   little,    as  far  as  we  know;    what  remains   from  his  pen  is 
mostly  of  an  occasional  character,  and  was  called  forth  by  practical 
needs.    However,  even  in  antiquity  the  labors  of  others  were  attributed 
to  him  and  sometimes  with  fraudulent  purpose. 

The  collected  writings  of  Gregory  were  first  edited  by  G.  Voss,  Mainz, 
1604;  then  by  Fronton  du  Due,  Paris,  1622.  They  are  in  Gallandi,  Bibl. 
vet.  Patr.  iii.  377  —  469  (cf.  iii.  Proleg. ,  xxv— xxix;  xiv.  app.  119),  and  in 
Migne,  PG. ,  x.  963 — 1232.  Several  writings  and  fragments,  partly  un 
known,  have  been  recently  edited  by  P.  de  Lagarde  and  P.  Martin,  from 
Syriac  and  Armenian  sources;  they  bear  the  name  of  Gregory,  and  an 
account  of  those  printed  before  1880  may  be  read  in  the  careful  study  of 
Ryssel,  Gregorius  Thaumaturgus  (cf.  additional  material  in  Jahrb.  f.  protest. 
Theol.  1881,  vii.  565  sq.).  There  is  an  English  translation  of  the  literary  remains 
of  Gregory  by  Sahnond,  in  Ante-Nicene  Fathers  (ed.  Coxe,  1896),  vi.  9 — 74. 

3.  GENUINE  WORKS.    -      The  following  works  may  and  ought  to 
be  recognized  as  genuine  writings :  a)  The  Panegyric  on  Origen,  deliver 
ed  at  Caesarea  in  238,  at  the  time  of  his  leave-taking.    It  is  entitled 
in   the  editions7:    SIQ  'Qptfiwqv  7Zf)OG<pcovrjTLy.bc,    xa}  Tiavyfupixb^   /.oyoQ, 
but  is  called    by  the  author  (c.  3,   31;    4,  40)  AO^OQ  yaptaTypioQ,    or 
« discourse  of  thanksgiving ».    The  thanks  of  the  speaker  are  directed 

1  Hier.,  De  viris  ill.,   c.   65.  2  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.   30. 

3  Ib.,  vii.   28,    i.  4  Ib.,   vii.   28,   2.  5  Lexicon,   s.  v.   Gregor. 

r>  Basil.  M.,  De  Spir.  Sancto,  c.   29,   74.  7  Migne,  PG.,  x.    1049 — 1104. 



first  to  God,  the  Giver  of  all  good,  then  to  the  guardian  angel  who 
accompanied  Gregory   and  Athenodorus   to  Csesarea,    and   finally  to 
the  great  teacher  who  inspired  both  with  a  love  for  (Christian)  philo 
sophy.    A  strong  current  of  living  and  affectionate  emotion  pulsates 
through  the  entire  discourse.     Its  diction  is  comparatively  pure  and 
noble,   in  spite  of  "a  certain  straining  after  rhetorical  effect,     b)  The 
Creed  of  Gregory  (sx&emQ  rye,  mffrscj^J  *.    According  to  the  legendary 
life  by  St.  Gregory  of  Nyssa  2  this  formula  of  faith  was  revealed  to  him 
in  a  vision  by  the  Apostle  John,  at  the  command  of  the  Mother  of 
God.    Caspari  has  shown  that  it  was  composed  between  260  and  270. 
It  is  a  brief  but  clear  and  precise  exposition  of  the  Christian  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity,    c)  The  so-called  Canonical  Epistle  (intaroM]  xavovcxy ; 
with    the  scholia  of  the   canonists  Balsamon  and  Zonaras) 3.     It  was 
written  to  solve  the  doubts  of  a  bishop  as  to  the  proper  treatment  of 
those  Christians  who  had  been  guilty  of  infractions  of  Christian  discipline 
and  morality  during  the  raids  of  the  Goths  and  Boradi  (Borani)  into 
Pontus  and  Bithynia.     The  document   is   of  importance  first    for  the 
history  of  ancient  ecclesiastical  discipline,  then  as  affording  evidence 
of  the  mildness  and    tact   of  Gregory.     Draseke   thinks   it  was  com 
posed   in    the    autumn    of  254.     d)  The  Metaphrase    of  Ecclesiastes 
(perdypamQ   sl^   rbv   ixxhjmaarqv  HO^O/JLW^TOQJ  4 ,    a   paraphrastic    ren 
dering    of  the    Greek    text    of  the   sacred    book.      The   manuscripts 
usually   attribute   it    to    St.    Gregory   of  Nazianzus,    but  St.  Jerome5 
and  Rufinus6  declare  it  to  be  a  work  of  St.  Gregory  Thaumaturgus. 
e)  The  work   «To  Theopompus   on   the  divine  incapacity   and  capa 
city  of  suffering »,  extant  in  Syriac  only,  a  philosophical  colloquy  as 
to  whether  the  divine  immunity  from  suffering  carries  with  it  neces 
sarily   an   indifference   to   the   affairs   of  mankind.     The   contents    of 
this  work  suggest  no  reason   to  doubt   its  genuineness;    it  was   pro 
bably   composed    before    his  consecration    as   bishop    of  Neocsesarea. 
Theopompus,    otherwise  unknown,    is    described  (c.  6)  as  a  follower 
of  «Isocrates»,    whom    Draseke    identifies   with    Socrates,    a    Gnostic 
and   a  Marcionite-.     The    latter   taught   that    from   all  eternity   God 
was    essentially   in    a   state   of   absolute    quietude    and    nowise   con 
cerned  himself  about  mankind,    f)  Lost  writings,  especially  a  dialogue 
with  ^Elianus  (npbz  Alhavbv  dtdX^iq)  intended  to  win  over  the  latter 
to   the  Christian    faith;    it   seems   to  have   dwelt  particularly   on   the 
Christian    teaching    concerning  God 8;    also    some    lost    epistolae*    of 
which  we  have  no  further  knowledge. 

1  Migne,  PG.,  x.   983—988. 

2  Greg.  Nyss.,  Vita  S.  Thaumat.  ;   Migne,  PG.,   xlvi    909  ff 
Migne,  PG.,  x.   1019-1048.  *  Ib.,  x.  987-1018 
De  viris  ill.,  c.   65;   Comm.  in  Eccl.   ad  iv.    13  ff. 

6  Hist.  eccl.   Eus.,  vii.   25. 

"  Dial,  de  recta  in  Deum  fide,   sect,    i  ;  Migne,   PG.,  xi.    1729. 
Basil.  Magn.,  Ep.   210,   5.  o  Hier^  De  viris  m  ;   c 

§    47-      ST-    GREGORY    THAUMATURGUS    (THE  WONDER-WORKER).          1/3 

a)  The  «Discourse  of  Thanksgiving »  has  reached  us  only  by  means  of 
the  manuscripts  in  which  it  is  joined  to  the  work  of  Origen  against  Celsus 
(§  39»  6).  For  excellent  separate  editions  we  are  indebted  to  y.  A.  Bengel, 
Stuttgart,  1722,  and  P.  Koetschau.  A  German  version  of  the  Panegyric,  the 
Creed  and  the  Canonical  Epistle  was  made  by  J.  Margraf,  Kempten,  1875 
(Bibl.  der  Kirchenvater).  -  -  b)  The  Creed  has  come  down  to  us  in  Greek 
through  a  work  of  Gregory  of  Nyssa  (1.  c.),  and  in  many  manuscripts ;  we 
possess  it  also  in  a  Syriac  version  and  in  two  early  Latin  versions,  one  by 
Rufinus  of  Aquileja,  the  other  anonymous.  For  all  these  texts  and  an 
exhaustive  demonstration  of  the  genuineness  and  integrity  of  this  Creed 
see  C.  P.  Caspari,  Alte  und  neue  Quellen  zur  Gesch.  des  Taufsymbols 
und  der  Glaubensregel,  Christiania,  1879,  PP-  1—64.  The  Syriac  text  is 
also  in  Pitra ,  Analecta  sacra  (1883),  iv.  81  345  f.  --  c)  The  Canonical 
Epistle  is  found  in  Routh ,  Reliquiae  Sacrae  (2)  iii.  251 — 283;  in  Pitra, 
luris  eccles.  Graecorum  historia  et  monumenta,  Rome,  1864,  i.  562  —  566, 
and  in  Drdseke ,  Jahrb.  f.  protest.  Theologie  (1881),  vii.  724 — 756.  - 
d)  For  the  Metaphrase  of  Ecclesiastes  cf.  Ryssel,  Gregorius  Thaumaturgus, 
pp.  27 — 29.  -  -  e)  The  work  «To  Theopompus»  is  printed,  in  P.  de  La- 
garde,  Analecta  Syriaca,  Leipzig  and  London,  pp.  46 — 64,  from  a  Syriac 
codex  of  the  sixth  century;  a  German  version  is  given  by  Ryssel,  1.  c., 
pp.  71 — 99  (cf.  pp.  118  —  124  137  f.  150 — 157).  Another  edition  of  the 
Syriac  text  is  that  of  P.  Martin,  in  Pitra,  Analecta  sacra,  iv.  103—120 
363 — 376.  Cf.  Drdseke,  Gesammelte  Patrist.  Untersuchungen,  Altona  and 
Leipzig,  1889,  pp.  162  —  1 68.  --  f)  The  Arabic  fragment  of  a  Sermo  de 
Trinitate  (Migne,  PG.,  x.  1123  — 1126;  Ryssel,  1.  c.,  43 — 46),  in  which  Mai 
thought  he  saw  a  fragment  of  the  dialogue  with  /Elianus,  is  spurious. 

4.  DUBIOUS  WORKS.  —  Other  writings  or  fragments  await  a  more 
thorough  study  of  their  contents  and  character:  a)  The  brief  treatise 
on  the  soul  addressed  to  Tatian  (/Jrfoc,  xspaAauodqQ  xepl  <p'J7Jj± 
Tipoc,  Tanavuv) 1.  It  discusses  the  existence  and  nature  of  the  soul, 
and  expressly  prescinds  from  scriptural  proof.  In  modern  times  it 
has  been  customary  to  look  on  it  as  spurious,  even  as  of  mediaeval 
origin.  Recently  a  Syriac  version  has  been  discovered  in  a  codex  of 
the  seventh  century;  it  is  also  possible  that  Procopius  of  Gaza  (about 
465 — 528)  cites  the  Greek  text  as  a  work  of  our  Gregory,  b)  We  owe 
to  P.  Martin  the  knowledge  of  five  homilies,  preserved  only  in  Armenian 
and  attributed  to  Gregory.  They  are :  Homilia  in  nativitatem  Christi. 
Sermo  de  incarnatione ,  Laus  S.  Dei  genitricis  et  semper  Virginis 
Mariae,  Panegyricus  sermo  in  S.  Dei  genitricem  et  semper  Virginem 
Mariam,  Sermo  panegyricus  in  honorem  S.  Stephani  protomartyris. 
The  last  four  are  certainly  products  of  a  much  later  age.  Loofs 
concedes  the  first  to  be  a  genuine  work  of  Gregory,  moved  by- 
numerous  points  of  contact  with  the  work  «To  Theopompus». 
Conybeare  translated  into  English,  also  from  the  Armenian,  a  sixth 
homily,  and  holds  it  to  be  a  genuine  discourse  of  Gregory,  c)  A  multi 
tude  of  loose  fragments,  mostly  spurious  and  insignificant;  here  and 
there,  however,  a  genuine  phrase  may  lie  hidden  among  them. 

1  Mig?ie,  PG.,  x.    1137 — 1146. 

174  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

a)  See  A.  Smith  Lewis,  in  Studia  Sinaitica,  London,  1894,  i.  19 — 26, 
for  a  Syriac  version  of  the  treatise  «on  the  soul».  It  lacks  only  the  intro 
duction;  the  codex  is  of  the  seventh  century.  A  German  version  is  given 
by  Ryssely  in  Rhein.  Mus.  f.  Philol.,  new  series  (1896),  li.  4 — 9,  cf.  318—320. 
The  "testimony  of  Procopius  is  treated  by  Draseke,  in  Zeitschr.  fiir  wissen- 
schaftl.  Theol.  (1896),  xxxix.  166 — 169,  and  Zttr  Gregor  von  Neocaesareas 
Schrift  iiber  die  Seele,  in  Zeitschr.  fiir  wissenschaftl.  Theol.  (1901),  xliv. 
87 — 100.  —  b)  The  five  Armenian  homilies  are  in  Pitra,  Analecta  sacra,  iv. 
134 — 145  156 — 169  (Armenian);  386—396  404 — 412  (Latin).  Cf.  Loofs, 
in  Theol.  Literaturzeitung  (1884),  pp.  551- — 553.  The  Armenian  homily  was 
translated  into  English  by  F.  C.  Conybeare ,  in  The  Expositor  (1896),  i. 
161  — 173.  S.  Haidacher ,  Zu  den  Homilien  des  Gregorius  von  Antiochia 
tind  des  Gregorius  Thaumaturgus,  in  Zeitschr.  f.  kath.  Theol.  (1901),  xxv. 
367 — 369.  --  c)  For  the  scattered  fragments  of  the  writings  of  Gregory 
see  Ryssels  Gregorius  Thaumaturgus,  pp.  43 — 59,  and  for  the  Greek  and 
Syriac  fragments,  in  particular,  see  Pitra,  1.  c.,  iii.  589 — 595;  iv.  133  386, 
and  Loofs,  1.  c.,  550  f. 

5.  SPURIOUS  WORKS.  —  A  number  of  works  have  been  erroneously 
attributed  to  Gregory,  a)  The  Syriac  work  «To  Philagrius  on  con- 
substantiality »  is  simply,  as  was  seen  by  Draseke,  the  Letter  npbq 
E'jdfpiov  fjLOva%bv  ^spl  $£0rjyn>£,  published  among  the  works  of  St.  Gre 
gory  of  Nazianzus1  and  St.  Gregory  of  Nyssa2,  and  probably  not 
written  before  350—400.  b)  The  «Sectional  Confession  of  Faith,  y  xard 
/jtlpoQ  xlffrtQ3,  an  exposition  of  doctrine  concerning  the  Blessed  Trinity 
and  the  Incarnation  of  the  Son,  is  not  a  work  of  Gregory.  Caspari  has 
proved  that  it  was  composed  by  Apollinaris  of  Laodicea  (about  380), 
and  circulated  by  the  Apollinarists  under  the  safe  cover  of  Gregory's 
reputation,  c)  The  « Twelve  Chapters  on  Faith »,  xspdlata  xepl  nla-sctx; 
dcodsxa*.  This  little  work  proposes  to  expound  the  orthodox  faith 
concerning  the  Incarnation.  It  is  anti-Apollinarist  (cc.  10 — n)  and 
was  probably  not  written  before  the  end  of  the  fourth  century. 
d)  Five  Greek  homilies  —  three  on  the  Annunciation 5,  one  on  Epi 
phany6  and  one  on  the  Feast  of  All  Saints7  -  -  are  all  spurious. 

a)  The  Syriac  text  of  the  work  «To  Philagrius »  is  found  in  de  Lagarde, 
Anal.  Syr.  pp.  43-46,  and  Pitra,  Analecta  sacra,  iv.  100—103.  A  German 
version  is  given  in  Ryssely  Gregorius  Thaumaturgus,  pp.  65 — 70  (cf.  pp.  100 
to  118  135  ft".  147  ff.),  and  a  Latin  version  in  Pitra,  1.  c.,  iv.  360 — 363. 
For  the  origin  of  that  work  see  (in  opposition  to  Ryssely  in  Jahrb.  fur 
protest.  Theol.  [1881],  vii.  565  —  573)  Draseke,  Gesammelte  Patrist.  Unter- 
suchungen  (1889),  pp.  103—162.  b)  The  «Sectional  Confession  of 

Faith »  may  also  be  found  in  de  Lagarde' s  Edition  of  the  Greek  work  of 
Titus  Bostrensis  «Against  the  Manichaeans»,  Berlin,  1859,  pp.  103  —  113. 
For  a  literal  Syriac  version  see  de  Lagarde,  Analecta  Syriaca,  pp.  31  -42, 
and  Pitra,  I.  c. ,  iv.  82—93  346—356  (Syriac  and  Latin).  Cf.  Caspari, 
Alte  und  neue  Quellen,  pp.  65—146.  --  c)  For  fragments  of  a  Syriac 

1  Migne,  PG.,  xxxvii.  383.  2  Ib.,  xlvi.    1 101  —  1108. 

3  Ib.,  x.  1103—1124.  *  Ib.,  x.    1127—1136. 

5  Ib.,  x.  1145—1178.  e  Ib  ;  x     II77_I190> 

7  Ib.,   x.  1197 — 1206. 

§    48.      ST.    METHODIUS    OF    OLYMPUS.  1/5 

version  of  the  Twelve  Chapters  etc.  cf.  de  Lagarde ,  1.  c. ,  pp.  65 — 67, 
and  Pitra ,  1.  c.,  iv.  95 — 100  357 — 360.  Concerning  these  «Chapters» 
consult  (against  Drdseke,  1.  c.  pp.  78 — 102)  Funk,  Kirchengeschichtl.  Ab- 
handlungen  und  Untersuchungen  (1899),  "•  329 — 338;  ^r-  Lauchert ,  in 
Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1900),  Ixxxii.  395 — 418.  --  d)  The  first  of  the  «Five 
Homilies»  is  extant  also  in  Syriac  (Pitra,  1.  c.,  iv.  122  — 127  377—381)  and 
in  Armenian  (ib.,  pp.  145 — 150  396  —  400),  the  second  also  in  Armenian 
(ib.,  pp.  150—156  400—404);  there  is  also  (ib.,  pp.  127—133  381—386) 
a  Syriac  text  of  the  fourth  homily.  The  arguments  of  Drdseke,  in  Jahrb. 
fiir  protest.  Theol.  (1884),  x.  657  ff.,  in  favor  of  the  authorship  of  Apol- 
linaris  of  Laodicea  for  the  first  two  and  the  fourth  homilies  are  not 

6.  ATHENODORUS.  -  -  In  his  Sacra  Parallela  St.  John  Damascene  attri 
butes  without  further  identification  three  fragments  of  a  work  irepl  ejJpaifffiou 
to  a  certain  Athenodorus.    It  may  have  been  written  by  Athenodorus,  the 
brother  of  St.  Gregory  Thaumaturgus.     Cf.  K.  Holl,  in  Texte  und  Unter 
suchungen,  xx,  new  series  (1899),  v-   2>   l6i- 

7.  FIRMILIAN  OF  c^ESAREA  (Cappadocia).  --  About   the    middle    of  the 
third  century  he  appears  as   one  of  the  most   highly  esteemed    bishops  of 
the  East  (Em.,  Hist,  eccl,  vii.  30,  3—5).    His  death  is  placed  in  269.    We 
have  from  his  pen  a  long  letter  to  St.  Cyprian  of  Carthage  relative  to  the 
Western  controversy  concerning  the  baptism  of  heretics,  in  a  Latin  version. 
It  is  printed  among  the   letters    of  Cyprian  (no.  75,  ed.  Hartel,  ii.  810  to 
827).     In   this  letter  he  gives  his  unreserved   approval    to  the    position    of 
St.  Cyprian,    declares  invalid  all  baptism  by  heretics,  and  denounces  with 
passionate  invective  the  judgment  of  Pope  Stephen.     J.  Ernst  has  shown, 
in  Zeitschrift  fiir  kath.  Theol.  (1894),  xviii.  209—259;  (1896),  xx.  364—367, 
that  it  is  impossible  to  defend  the  interpolation-hypothesis  put  forward  by 
O.    Ritschl ,   in    Cyprian    von    Karthago    und    die    Verfassung    der   Kirche, 
Gottingen,    1885,    pp.   126 — 134.     St.  Basil  the  Great   mentions  (De  Spir. 
Sancto,  cc.  29  74)  other  works  (AOYOI)  ofFirmilian.    Cf.  B.  Bossue,  in  Acta 
SS.  Oct.  (1867),  xii.  470—510. 

§  48.     St.   Methodius  of  Olympus. 

I.  HIS  LIFE.  —  It  is  hidden  in  almost  complete  obscurity.  In  his 
Church  History,  Eusebius  does  not'  honor  with  a  mention  this  enemy 
of  Origen.  We  know  only  that  he  was  bishop  of  Olympus  in  Lycia 
and  that  he  died  about  311  a  martyr's  death  in  the  persecution  of 
Maximinus  Daza1.  The  rumor  in  St.  Jerome2  that  he  was  at  first 
bishop  of  Olympus  and  was  then  translated  to  Tyre  (in  Phoenicia), 
also  the  later  tradition  in  Leontius  of  Byzantium3  that  he  was  bishop 
of  Patara  (in  Lycia),  are  apparently  the  results  of  a  misunderstanding. 

A.  Pankow,  Methodius,  Bischof  von  Olympus,  in  Katholik  (1887),  ii. 
i — 28  113—142  225  —  250  (reprint,  Mainz,  1888).  Concerning  the  episcopal 
see  of  Methodius  see  Th.  Zahn ,  in  Zeitschr.  fiir  Kirchengesch.  (1885  to 
1886),  viii.  15 — 20.  C.  G.  Lundberg,  Methodius,  biskop  of  Olympos,  en 
Studie  i  de  fornicenska  patristiken,  Stockholm,  1901. 

1  Hier.,  De  viris  ill.,  c.   83;  cf.  Socr.,  Hist,  eccl,  vi.    13. 

2  L.  c.  3  De  sectis,  iii.    i. 

176  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

2.  WRITINGS    OF    METHODIUS.  -  -  Unlike   St.   Gregory   Thaumat- 
urgus  Methodius  considered  that  literary  labors  were  one  of  the  most 
important   phases  of  his  life-work.     Of  his  writings,    however,    only 
one  has  reached  us  in  its  complete  Greek  text.     Others   have  come 
down,  in  abbreviated  shape,  through  an  Old-Slavonic  version  of  the 
eleventh  century.     Though  diffuse,   he  is  judged    by  St.  Jerome1  to 
be  a  pleasing  and  elegant  writer.    He  is  remarkable  for  formal  beauty 
of  diction   and    delights   in   imitating  Plato ,    even    to    the    choice    of 
dialogue  as  the  medium  of  his  thoughts.    His  dogmatic-historical  im 
portance  is  principally  due  to  his  energetic  and  successful  fight  against 

His  writings,  entire  and  fragmentary,  were  collected  by  Fr.  Combefis, 
Paris,  1644;  they  are  reprinted  in  Gallandi ,  Bibl.  vet.  Patr.  (1767),  iii. 
663 — 832  (cf.  Proleg.,  li. — liv.),  and  in  Migne,  PG.,  xviii.  9—408,  also  in 
A.  Jahn,  S.  Methodii  opera  et  S.  Methodius  platonizans,  Halle,  1865. 
A  German  version  of  the  Old-Slavonic  Corptis  Methodianum  and  a  new 
edition  of  most  of  the  Greek  fragments  were  made  by  G.  N.  Bonwetsch, 
Methodius  von  Olympus,  i:  Schriften,  Erlangen  and  Leipzig,  1891.  There 
is  an  English  translation  of  the  works  of  Methodius  by  W.  R.  Clark ,  in 
Ante-Nicene  Fathers  (ed.  Coxe,  1896),  vi.  309 — 402.  See  Preuschen ,  in 
Harnack,  Gesch.  der  altchristl.  Lit.,  i.  468 — 478;  G.  Fritschel,  Methodius 
von  Olympus  und  seine  Philosophic  (Inaug.-Diss.),  Leipzig,  1879.  L.  Atz- 
berger,  Gesch.  der  christl.  Eschatologie  innerhalb  der  vornicanischen  Zeit, 
Freiburg,  1896,  pp.  469—490;  G.  N.  Bonwetsch,  Die  Theologie  des  Metho 
dius  von  Olympus  untersucht  (Abhandlungen  der  k.  -  Gesellschaft  der 
Wissensch.  zu  Gottingen),  Berlin,  1903. 

3.  WORKS   OF   METHODIUS   IN    GREEK.   -  -   «The  Banquet   or   on 
Virginity»    (auunumov  r/  Ttspl  a^siaQj2   is  an    imitation  of  the   «Ban- 
quet»  of  Plato.    The  virgin  Gregorium  relates  to  the  author  Eubulius 
(i.  e.   Methodius)  the  story  of  a  banquet  in  the  gardens  of  Arete  at 
which  ten  virgins  glorify  chastity  in  lengthy  discourses  upon  that  sub 
ject.   At  the  end  Thecla,  the  eighth  speaker,  to  whom  Arete  had  given 
the  prize,  intones  a  hymn  to  the  bridegroom  Christ  and  to  His  bride 
the   Church.     The  dialogue  of  Methodius  «on    the   Freedom    of  the 
will»  faspl  TO~J  atJTSsoufflouj  is  almost  completely  extant  in  the  original 
Greek.    We  have  already  mentioned  (§  33,  6)  a  very  important  frag 
ment;  there  is  extant  also  a  somewhat  defective  version  in  Old-Slavonic. 
In  this  work  an  orthodox  Christian  attacks  the  Gnostic  dualism  and 
determinism  represented  by  two  followers  of  Valentinian.    He  denies 
the  eternity  of  matter  as  a  principle  of  evil ;   the  latter  is  rather  the 
result  of  the  free  will  of  rational  creatures.     The  Greek  text  of  the 
prolix  dialogue,  in  three  books,  on  the  Resurrection,   originally  per 
haps  entitled  'A?Xao<pa>v  %  xepi  dvaffraffsco^  has  mostly  perished;  some 
fragments  of  the  original  are  yet  extant.     There  exists,  however,  in 
31d-Slavonic,  a  complete  version,  save  that  the  second  and  third  books 

1   Hier.,   De  viris  ill.,   c.   83.  *  Migne,  PG.,   xviii.   27—220: 

48.      ST.    METHODIUS    OF    OLYMPUS.  1/7 

have  suffered  abbreviation.  The  scene  of  the  dialogue  is  at  Patara, 
in  the  house  of  the  physician  Aglaophon ;  the  subject  of  the  dis 
cussion  is  the  problem  « whether  after  death  this  body  will  rise  again 
to  incorruptibility »  (I,  I,  8).  Aglaophon  and  Proclus  side  with  Origen 
in  denying  the  identity  of  the  risen  body  with  that  of  our  present 
state,  while  Eubulius  (Methodius)  and  Memianus  defend  the  ecclesia 
stical  teaching.  Methodius1  was  unable  to  finish  this  work  on  the 
lines  of  his  original  plan ;  it  merited  and  enjoyed,  nevertheless,  the 
esteem  of  many. 

The  «Banquet»  was  first  edited  by  L.  Allatius,  Rome,  1656.  E.  Carel, 
S.  Methodii  Patarensis  convivium  decem  virginum  (These),  Paris,  1880.  On 
the  hymn  at  the  end  of  the  «Banquet»  cf.  Krumbacher,  Gesch.  der  byzant. 
Liter.  (2)  pp.  653  697.  For  the  dialogue  on  «Free  Will»  in  Greek  and 
Slavonic  (also  a  German  version)  cf.  Bonwetsch,  \.  c.,  pp.  i — 62  •,  cf  xiv — xxii. 
The  dialogue  on  the  Resurrection  is  found  ib.,  pp.  70  —  283;  cf.  xxiii — xxx. 
349.  Syriac  fragments  of  this  dialogue  are  printed  in  Pitra,  Analecta  sacra, 
iv.  201—205  434—438. 

4.  WRITINGS   PRESERVED   IN   OLD-SLAVONIC.  --In  addition  to   the 
dialogues    on  Free  Will    and    the  Resurrection    there   are    four  other 
tractates    in    the    Old-Slavonic   Corpus   Methodianum:    «On    life    and 
rational  activity »   (De  vita),  an  exhortation  to  contentment  with  the 
present  life  and  to  hope  for  the  future;  .«On  the  difference  of  foods 
and  the  young  cow  mentioned  in  Leviticus »    (rather    in  Numb,  xix) 
(De  cibis),   an  allegorico- typical  interpretation  of  the  food-ordinances 
of  the  Old  Testament  and  the  law  of  the  sacrifice  of  the  red  cow 
(see  §  39,    14)  addressed  to  two  women,    Frenope  and  Kilonia;   To 
Sistelius  on  leprosy  (De  lepra),  a  dialogue  between  Eubulius  (Metho 
dius)  and  Sistelius  on  the  spiritual  sense  of  the  legislation  concerning 
leprosy  in  Lev.  xiii ;    «On    the   bloodsucker   mentioned    in  Proverbs, 
and  on  the  words   'the  heavens  shew  forth    the  glory  of  God'»   (De 
sawguisuga),  an  exposition   of  Prov.  xxx.   1 5  ff.   (cf.  xxiv.   50  ff.)  and 
Ps.  xviii.  2  (Septuagint).     It  was  addressed    to  a  certain  Eustachius. 

The  Old-Slavonic  text  of  these  tractates  is  given  in  a  German  version 
by  Bonwetsch,  1.  c.  The  Greek  fragments  of  the  work  on  leprosy  printed 
by  Bonwetsch  (pp.  311 — 325)  prove  conclusively  that  the  Slavonic  text  has 
been  abbreviated  and  mutilated.  For  the  contents  of  these  treatises  see 
Abhandlgn.,  Al.  v.  Ottingen  zum  70.  Geburtstag  gevvidmet,  Munich,  1898, 
PP-  29—53. 

5.  LOST  WRITINGS.   -  -  In    the  De   sanguisuga  (10,  4)  Methodius 
announces  to  his  friend  Eustachius  a  work  «On  the  body».    St.  Jerome 
mentions2    four  works   that  no  longer  .exist:    Adversum  Porpkyriunt 
libri,  an  extensive  refutation  of  the  fifteen  books  written  against  the 
Christians  by  that  Neoplatonist  philosopher3;  Adversus  Origenem  de 

1  De  cibis,   c.    i,    i.  2  De  viris  ill.,   c.  83. 

;{  //«?/-.,   Ep.   48,    13;    70,   3;   al. 
BARDENHEWER-SHAHAN,  Patrology.  12 

1^8  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

pythonissa,  or  on  the  Witch  of  Endor,  in  opposition  to  the  homily 
of  Origen  on  the  same  subject  (§  39,  4);  In  Genesim  et  In  Canticum 
canticorum  commentarii.  Theodoret  of  Cyrus  mentions1  a  «  discourse 
on  the  martyrs*  (nsp\  rtov  napT'jpcov  Ai'rfoq).  It  is  probable  that  the 
dialogue  entitled  Xenon,  mentioned  by  Socrates2  is  identical  with  the 
work  «On  created  things»  (nepi  TWV  ^svTjTwv)t  fragments  of  which 
have  been  preserved  by  Photius3,  against  the  work  of  Origen  «On 
the  eternity  of  the  world  »  defended,  as  it  seems,  by  Xenon.  Some 
fragments  of  the  scholia  of  Methodius  on  the  book  of  Job  are  met 
with  in  the  Catenae. 

For  the  fragments  of  the  work  against  Porphyry  see  Bomvetsch,  1.  c., 
pp.  345  —  348.  To  the  same  work  must  belong  the  pretended  excerpta  tria 
ex  homilia  S.  Methodii  de  cruce  et  passione  Christi,  in  Migne  ,  PG.  ,  xviii. 
397  —  404.  See  Preuschen  ,  1.  c.  ,  i.  478,  for  the  fragments  of  the  com 
mentary  on  Genesis  and  the  Canticle  of  canticles.  Two  sentences  of  the 
work  «On  the  Martyrs*  are  printed  in  Bonwetsch,  1.  c.,  p.  349.  Cf.  ib., 
pp.  349  —  354,  the  fullest  collection  of  the  scholia  on  Job. 

6.  SPURIOUS  WORKS.  -  The  orations  De  Simeone  et  Anna*,  In 
ramos  palmarum  5  and  In  ascensionem  Domini  Nostri  lesu  Christi. 
are  spurious;  the  last  exists  only  in  Armenian  and  in  a  fragmen 
tary  state. 

The  last  of  these  orations  is  found  in  Pitra  ,  Analecta  sacra,  iv. 
207—209  439—441. 


§  49.     General  Considerations. 

As  early  as  the  third  century  the  ecclesiastical  literature  of  the 
West  exhibits  certain  native  peculiarities.  Its  organ  is  the  Latin,  not 
the  Greek  tongue,  and  a  distinctly  Roman  spirit  dominates  its  contents. 

There   reigns   throughout   its   products  a  sober   and    practical   spirit. 

The  idealism  of  the  Greek  writings,  their  tendency  to  speculation  and 
dialectic  are  not  entirely  foreign  to  .this  Latin  Christian  literature; 
yet  its  direct  purpose  is  the  immediately  necessary  or  useful.  Withal, 
it  exhibits  versatility  and  variety  in  a  degree  that  almost  astonishes 
the  reader.  Owing  to  the  circumstances  of  the  times  the  apologetic 
element  is  supreme.  In  the  writings  of  Tertullian  and  in  the  (Greek) 
writings  of  Hippolytus  anti-heretical  polemic  abounds.  Exegesis  is 
represented  chiefly  by  Hippolytus  and  Victorinus  of  Pettau.  Com- 
modianus  leads  the  procession  of  Christian  poets  in  the  Latin  tongue. 
is  worthy  of  note  that  the  Western  writers  are  few,  and  that  of 
the  small  number  the  majority  comes  from  Northern  Africa. 


;  opp.  ed.   Schnltze,  iv.   55.  2  Hist    ecd  ^   yj 

§    50.      TERTULLIAN. 

§  50.     Tertullian. 

1.  HIS  LIFE.  —  Quintus  Septimius  Florens  Tertullianus  was  born, 
it   is   usually  believed,    about   the   year   160   at  Carthage,    where    his 
father  was  serving  as  a  centurion  (centurio  proconsularis)  in  the  service 
of   the    proconsul    of  Africa 1.     He    received   an    excellent   academic 
training   and    probably    entered    upon    the    career    of   an    advocate2. 
There  are  in  the  Pandects  some  excerpts  from  the  writings  of  a  jurist 
Tertullian  (Quaestianum  libri  viii,  De  castrensi  peculio)  whom  many 
historians  are  inclined  to  identify  with  our  ecclesiastical  writer    About 
193,  certainly  before  197,  he  became  a  Christian,  was  ordained  also  a 
priest  according   to  St.  Jerome3,    and  began  a  long  literary  career  in 
the  service  of  the  new  faith.    About  midway  in  his  life  (ca.  202)  he 
openly  joined    the  sect  of  the  Montanists,    and  began  to  attack   the 
Catholic  Church  with  a  violence  scarcely  inferior   to    that  which    he 
had    manifested   against   heathenism.    Within    the  Montanist    fold    he 
founded  a  special  sect  known  as  Tertullianists 4.    He  is  said  to  have 
lived  to  a  very  advanced  age5. 

C.  E.  Frcppd,  Tertullien,  2  voll.,  Paris,  1864;  3.  ed.  1886.  F.  Boh- 
ringer,  Die  Kirche  Christ!  und  ihre  Zeugen,  2.  ed.,  iii.  — iv:  Die  lateinisch- 
afrikanische  Kirche.  Tertullianus,  Cypriantis  (Stuttgart,  1864);  2.  ed.  1873. 
A.  Hauck,  Tertullians  Leben  und  Schriften,  Erlangen,  1877.  &  Noldechen, 
Tertullian,  Gotha,  1890.  Cf.  Noldechen,  Die  Abfassungszeit  der  Schriften 
Tertullians,  Leipzig,  1888  (Texte  und  Untersuchungen,  v.  2).  In  these  two 
books  Noldechen  collected  the  results  of  investigations  previously  published 
in  several  theological  and  historical  reviews.  --  Schanz ,  Geschichte  der 
rom.  Literatur  (1896),  iii.  240 — 302.  P.  Monceaux,  Histoire  litteraire  de 
1'Afrique  chretienne.  I:  Tertullien,  Paris,  1901.  H.  Kellner  and  G.  Esscr, 
in  Kirchenlexikon,  2.  ed.,  xi.  1389 — 1426.  --  On  the  Jurist  Tertullian  cf. 
Schanz,  1.  c.,  iii.  182. 

2.  HIS  LITERARY  LABORS.  -      Tertullian    is   the    most    prolific  of 
all    the    Latin    writers;    he    is    also    the    most    original    and    personal. 
Ebert  says  well  that  perhaps  no  author  has  ever  more  fully  justified 
than  Tertullian  the  phrase  of  BufTon  that  the  style  is  the   man;    for 
there    never  was    a   man  that  spoke  more  from  his  heart.     He  lives 
habitually  in  an  atmosphere  of  conflict  with  others  and  with  himself. 
He  is   quite  conscious   of  this  weakness.      « Unhappy  me!»    he    cries 
out    on     one    occasion,     «always     burning    with    the    fever    of    im 
patience  »   -  -  miser rimus   ego   semper   iiror   caloribus   impatientiae6. 
All    his   .extant  writings,    it   may   be  said,    are   polemical.     They   fall 
easily   into    three    groups :    apologetic,    in   defence    of  Christianity   or 

1  Hier.,  De  viris  ill.,  c.   53.  2  Eus..  Hist,  eccl.,   ii.   2,  4. 

3  De  viris  ill.,   c.   53.  4  Aug.,  De  haer.,  c.  86. 

5  Hier.,  \.  c. :  fertur  vixisse  usque  ad  decrepitam  aetatem. 

6  De  pat.   c.    I. 

12  * 


against  heathenism  and  Judaism;  dogmatico-polemic,  in  refutation 
of  heresy  in  general  and  of  certain  heretics;  practico-ascetical,  dealing 
with  various  questions  of  Christian  morality  and  discipline.  Even  in 
these  writings  the  polemical  element,  or  a  highly  personal  note,  is 
always  present,  whether  he  writes  as  a  Catholic  carried  away  with 
holy  zeal  yet  harshly  rigoristic,  or  as  a  Montanist  overflowing  with 
passionate  rage  against  the  pretended  laxity  of  the  Catholic  Church. 
Tertullian  is  ever  a  powerful  adversary,  a  man  of  burning  eloquence, 
biting  satire,  compact  and  forcible  logic.  As  a  rule  he  over-shoots 
the  mark ,  and  fails  to  attain  his  immediate  purpose  *.  As  a  writer 
he  is  without  moderation,  contemptuous  of  all  compromise,  proving 
frequently  more  than  is  needed;  the  reader  is  carried  away  rather 
than  persuaded  by  his  argument;  he  is  hushed  by  the  fine  display 
of  wit,  but  remains  unconvinced  and  antagonistic. 

In  expression  Tertullian  is  concise  and  bold,  solid  and  rugged, 
involved  and  obscure.  He  has  no  sense  for  beauty  of  form;  he 
deliberately  scoffs  at  the  refined  diction  of  a  Minucius  Felix  (§  24). 
He  seizes  with  pleasure  on  popular  expressions;  in  a  moment  of 
embarrassment  he  is  daringly  creative  and  suddenly  enriches  the 
vocabulary  of  the  Latin  tongue.  The  theology  of  the  Western 
Christians  is  indebted  to  him  for  many  of  its  technical  terms. 

The  manuscript  tradition  of  the  writings  of  Tertullian  is  very  im 
perfect.  Only  the  Apologeticum  has  come  down  in  numerous  codices, 
some  of  them  quite  ancient;  a  whole  series  of  his  other  writings  has 
been  preserved  only  through  the  Codex  Agobardinus  (Parisiensis)  of  the 
ninth  century.  The  works  De  baptismo,  De  ieiunio  and  De  pudicitia 
are  now  without  any  manuscript  evidence  or  guarantee.  His  writings, 
as  far  as  we  possess  them,  must  have  appeared  between  195  and  218. 
For  each  of  them  the  actual  date  is  doubtful  or  much  disputed; 
there  are  no  certain  points  of  comparison.  However,  it  is  usually 
possible  to  say  whether  a  given  work  belongs  to  his  Catholic  or  his 
Montanist  period. 

For  the  manuscripts  of  the  writings  of  Tertullian  see  Preuschen ,  in 
Harnacky  Gesch.  der  altchristl.  Literatur,  i.  675-677,  and  E.  Kroymann, 
Die  Tertullian-Uberlieferung  in  Italian,  Wien,  1898  (Sitzungsberichte  der 
phil.-histor.  Kl.  der  kgl.  Akad.  der  Wissensch.  zu  Wien,  cxxxviii.  — 
Complete  editions  of  his  works  were  published  by  B.  Rhenanus,  Basle, 
1521,  and  often  since  (cf.  A.  Horawitz,  in  the  above-mentioned  Sitzungs- 
benchten,  1872,  Ixxi.  662—674);  J.  Pamelius,  Antwerp.,  1579;  N.  Rigaltius, 
Pans,  1634;  y.  S.  Semler,  Halle,  1769—1776,  6  voll. ;  Migne,  PL.,  Paris, 
1844,  i.— ii.;  Fr.  Ohler,  Leipzig,  1851  —  1854,  3  voll.,  and  also  (editio 
minor)  Leipzig,  1854  (cf.  Klussmann,  in  Zeitschr.  fur  wissensch.  Theol. 
[1860],  m.  82-100,  363  —  393,  and  Ohler,  ib.  [1861],  iv.  204—211).  An 
ition  corresponding  to  modern  scientific  needs  and  conditions  was  under 
taken  by  A.  Reifferscheid,  and  continued  after  his  death  (1887)  by  G.  Wis- 

1  De  virg.  vel.,  c.    i. 

$    50.      TERTULLIAN.  iSl 

sowa:  Pars  I,  Vienna,  1890  (Corpus  scriptorum  eccl.  Lat. ,  xx.).  Cf.  W- 
von  Hartel ,  Patristische  Studien,  Wien,  1890,  i. — iv.  (reprint  from  the 
just-mentioned  Wiener  Sitzungsberichten ,  cxx. — cxxi.).  For  other  contri 
butions  to  the  textual  criticism  of  Tertullian  cf.  M.  Klussmann ,  Curarum 
Tertullianearum  partic.  i. — iii.,  Halle,  1881,  Gotha,  1887-  Excerpta  Ter- 
tullianea  in  Isidori  Hispalensis  Etymologiis  (Progr.),  Hamburg,  1892.  J.  van 
der  Vliet ,  Studia  ecclesiastica :  Tertullianus.  I.  Critica  et  interpretatoria, 
Leiden,  1891.  Aem.  Kroymann ,  Quaestiones  Tertullianeae  criticae,  Inns 
bruck,  1894;  H.  Gomperz,  Tertullianea,  Vienna,  1895;  Kroymann.,  Kritische 
Vorarbeiten  ftir  den  dritten  und  vierten  Band  der  neuen  Tertullian- Ausgabe, 
Vienna,  1900  (Sitzungsberichte,  clxiii.).  --  JFr.  A.  von  Besnard,  Tertullian. 
Samtliche  Schriften  iibersetzt  und  bearbeitet,  2  voll.,  Augsburg,  1837 — 1838. 
H.  Kellner,  Tertullians  ausgewahlte  Schriften  iibersetzt,  2  voll.,  Kempten 
1870 — 1871  (Bibl.  der  Kirchenvater).  Id.,  Tertullians  samtliche  Schriften 
aus  dem  Lateinischen  iibersetzt,  2  voll.,  Cologne,  1882.  —  For  an  English 
translation  of  the  writings  of  Tertullian  see  Holmes  and  Thidnall,  in  Ante- 
Nicene  Fathers  (ed.  Coxe),  iii.  17 — 697,  707 — 717;  iv.  3  —  121. 

On  the  style  and  diction  of  Tertullian  the  reader  may  consult  G.  R. 
Haus  child ,  Die  Grundsatze  und  Mittel  der  Wortbildung  bei  Tertullian 
(Progr.),  I,  Leipzig,  1876;  II,  Frankfurt,  1881.  J.  P.  Condamin ,  De  Q. 
S.  Fl.  Tertulliano  vexatae  religionis  patrono  et  praecipuo,  apud  Latinos, 
christianae  linguae  artifice  (These),  Bar-le-duc,  1877.  H.  Hoppe,  De  ser- 
mone  Tertullianeo  quaestiones  selectae  (Dissert,  inaug.) ,  Marburg,  1897. 
E.  Nor  den,  Die  antike  Kunstprosa,  Leipzig,  1898,  ii.  606 — 615.  H.  Hoppe, 
Syntax  und  Stil  des  Tertullian,  Leipzig,  1903.  See  also  for  the  illustration 
of  the  text  C.  Cavedoni ,  Luoghi  notevoli  di  Tertulliano  dichiarati  coi  ris- 
contri  dei  monument!  antichi,  in  Archivio  dell'  Ecclesiastico  (1864),  ii.  409 
to  431.  H.  Kellner,  Organischer  Zusammenhang  und  Chronologic  der 
Schriften  Tertullians,  in  «Katholik»  (1879),  n-  56z — 589^  ^V-  Chronologiae 
Tertullianeae  supplementa  (Progr.),  Bonn,  1890.  G.  N.  JBonwetsch ,  Die 
Schriften  Tertullians  nach  der  Zeit  ihrer  Abfassung  untersucht,  Bonn,  1878. 
A.  Harnack,  Zur  Chronologic  der  Schriften  Tejtullians ,  in  Zeitschr.  fur 
Kirchengesch.  (1877  —  1878),  ii.  572  —  583.  E.  Noldechen,  Die  Abfassungszeit 
der  Schriften  Tertullians,  Leipzig,  1888  (see  above).  J.  Schmidt,  Ein  Bei- 
trag  zur  Chronologic  der  Schriften  Tertullians  und  der  Prokonsuln  von 
Afrika,  in  Rhein.  Museum  fiir  Philol.,  new  series  (1891),  xlvi.  77 — 98. 
y.  P.  Knaake,  Die  Predigten  des  Tertullian  und  Cyprian,  in  Theol.  Studien 
und  Kritiken  (1903),  Ixxvi.  606 — 639.  --  -  Works  on  the  doctrine  of  Ter 
tullian  :  y.  A.  W.  Neander,  Antignostikus.  Geist  des  Tertullianus  und  Ein- 
leitung  in  dessen  Schriften,  Berlin,  1825;  2.  ed.  1849.  £*•  £•  Leimbach, 
Beitrage  zur  Abendmahlslehre  Tertullians,  Gotha,  1874.  G.  Caucanas, 
Tertullien  et  le  montanisme,  Geneve,  1876.  G.  R.  Hauschild,  Die  rationale 
Psychologic  und  Erkenntnistheorie  Tertullians,  Leipzig,  1880.  G.  Ludwig, 
Tertullians  Ethik  in  durchatis  objektiver  Darstellung  (Inaug.  -  Diss.), 
Leipzig,  1885.  G.  Esser,  Die  Seelenlehre  Tertullians,  Paderborn,  1893. 
K.  H.  Wirth,  Der  «Verdienst»-Begriff  in  der  christl.  Kirche.  I:  Der  «Ver- 
dienst»-Begriff  bei  Tertullian,  Leipzig,  1893.  y.  Stier,  Die  Gottes-  und 
Logoslehre  Tertullians,  Gottingen,  1889.  G.  Schwelowsky ,  Der  Apologet 
Tertullian  in  seinem  Verhaltnis  zu  der  griechisch-romischen  Philosophic, 
Leipzig,  i  go  i.  C.  Guignebert,  Tertullien.  Etude  sur  ses  sentiments  a  1'egard 
de  1'empire  et  de  la  socie'te  civile,  Paris,  1901.  --  J.  F.  Bethune- Baker, 
Tertullian's  use  of  Substantia,  Natura,  and  Persona,  in  Journal  of  Theol. 
Studies  (1902 — 1903),  iv.  440 — 442.  J.  Leblanc,  Le  materialisme  de  Ter 
tullien,  in  Annales  de  philos.  chretienne,  Juillet,  1903,  pp.  415 — 423. 
H.  Ronsch ,  Das  Neue  Testament  Tertullians  aus  dessen  Schriften  mog- 

1 82  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

lichst  vollstandig  rekonstruiert ,  Leipzig,  1871.  J.  Kolberg ,  Verfassung, 
Kultus  imd  Disziplin  der  christlichen  Kirche  nach  den  Schriften  Tertullians, 
Braunsberg,  1886.  A.  Harnack,  Tertullian  in  der  Literatur  der  alten  Kirche 
(Sitzungsberichte  der  kgl.  pretiftischen  Akad.  der  Wissensch.  zu  Berlin,  1895, 
pp.  545 — 579).  A.  J.  Mason,  Tertullian  and  Purgatory,  in  Journal  of  Theol. 
Studies  (1902),  iii.  598 — 601.  J.  Tixeront ,  Histoire  des  dogmes.  I:  La 
Theologie  ante-Niceenne,  Paris,  1904.  A.  d'Ales ,  La  Theologie  de  Ter- 
tullien,  Paris,  1905.  y.  Turmel,  Tertullien,  in  La  Pense'e  chretienne,  Textes 
et  etudes,  Paris,  1905,  xlviii.  398. 

3.  APOLOGETIC  WRITINGS.  —  Foremost  among  these  is  the  Apo 
logeticum  or  Apologeticus  (the  most  ancient  text-witnesses  do  not  agree), 
a  defence  of  Christianity,  composed  in  the  summer  or  autumn  of  197, 
and  addressed  to  the  provincial  governors  of  the  Roman  Empire.  It 
opens  with  a  request,  couched  in  words  of  great  beauty  and  force, 
that  the  truth,  being  forbidden  to  defend  itself  publicly,  may  reach 
the  ears  of  the  rulers  at  least  by  the  hidden  paths  of  dumb  letters. 
The  Apology  itself  falls  into  two  parts,  in  so  far  as  it  treats  first  of 
the  « secret »  and  then  of  the  « public »  crimes  of  the  Christians  (pcculta 
facinora,  c.  6;  manifestiora,  cc.  6  9).  He  makes  short  work  of  the 
first  class  of  accusations:  infanticide,  Thyestsean  banquets,  incest 
(cc.  7 — 9);  all  the  more  lengthy  and  detailed  is  his  treatment 
(cc.  10 — 27  28 — 45)  of  the  «public»  crimes:  contempt  of  the  religion 
of  the  fatherland  (intentatio  laesae  divinitatis,  c.  27),  and  the  still 
more  reprehensible  crime  of  high  treason  (titulus  laesae  augustioris 
maiestatis,  c.  28).  He  closes  with  an  assertion  of  the  absolute 
superiority  of  Christianity ;  it  is  a  revealed  religion  and  is  beyond  the 
rivalry  of  all  human  philosophy  (cc.  46 — 50).  The  special  characteristic 
of  the  work  lies  in  the  boldness  with  which  the  politico-juridical 
accusations  against  the  Christians  are  brought  to  the  front.  Its  relations 
to  the  Octavius  of  Minucius  Felix  have  already  been  indicated  (§  24,  2). 
An  ancient  Greek  version  has  perished ;  we  know  of  it  only  through 
citations  in  Eusebius1.  A  second  Apology,  Ad  nationes  libri  ii,  is 
partly  illegible  in  the  only  manuscript  known  to  us,  the  Codex  Ago- 
bardinus.  In  the  first  book  he  demonstrates  that  the  accusations  launched 
against  the  Christians  are  really  true  of  the  heathens ;  in  the  second 
book  he  draws  on  Varro's  Rerum  divinarum  libri  xvi  in  order 
to  cover  with  ridicule  the  heathen  belief  in  the  gods.  The  tone  of  this 
work  is  more  animated  and  acrimonious,  than  that  of  the  Apologeticum. 
Its  process  of  reasoning  is  also  less  orderly  and  the  diction  less  chaste. 
It  was  also  written  in  197,  a  little  while  before  the  Apologeticum,  the 
appearance  of  which  it  frequently  announces  (i.  3  7  10;  al).  The  golden 
booklet  De  testimonio  animae  is  an  appendix  to  the  Apologeticum, 
destined  to  illustrate  the  meaning  of  the  phrase  testimonium  animae 
naturaliter  christianae  (Apol.  c.  17).  Even  the  heathen,  by  his  in- 

1  Hist,   eccl.,  ii.   2,  4 — 6;   al. 

§    50-      TERTULLIAN.  183 

voluntary  exclamations  and  his  ordinary  modes  of  speech,  gives  ex 
pression  to  a  natural  religious  knowledge  of  God,  to  belief  in  His 
existence  and  unity,  the  reality  of  malevolent  spirits,  and  a  life  beyond 
the  grave.  All  this  corresponds  admirably  with  the  teachings  of  the 
Christians.  In  his  treatment  of  these  ideas  Tertullian  reveals  the 
touch  and  temper  of  the  poet.  The  brief  letter  Ad  Scapulam,  written 
probably  some  time  after  Aug.  14.,  212,  was  intended  as  an  ad 
monition  to  Scapula,  proconsul  of  Africa,  an  especially  fierce  per 
secutor  of  the  Christians.  Tertullian  reminds  him  of  the  divine 
judgments  that  had  fallen  upon  the  persecutors  of  former  days.  The 
Adversus  ludaeos,  called  forth,  as  the  opening  words  show,  by  a 
discussion  between  a  Christian  and  a  Jewish  proselyte,  was  written 
to  prove  that  the  grace  of  God,  voluntarily  rejected  by  Israel,  has 
been  offered  to  the  Gentiles.  In  place  of  the  ancient  law  of  retri 
bution  there  has  come  the  new  law  of  love.  In  Jesus  of  Nazareth 
the  prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament  were  fulfilled.  The  last  chapters, 
9 — 14,  which  deal  with  the  Messianic  office  of  Jesus,  are  clearly  an 
unskilful  excerpt  from  the  third  book  of  Tertullian's  « Against  Marcion». 
Some  passages,  nevertheless,  not  found  in  the  latter  work  seem  to 
indicate  by  their  style  and  vocabulary  the  personality  of  Tertullian. 
It  is  probably  true  that  Tertullian  left  the  work  incomplete;  a  later 
and  unskilful  hand  has  compiled  the  last  chapters.  Chapters  I — 8 
are  surely  the  work  of  Tertullian ;  both  internal  evidence  and  citations 
by  St.  Jerome  make  it  certain *. 

The  best  of  the  separate  editions  of  the  Apologeticum  is  that  of 
S.  Haverkamp ,  Leyden,  1718.  Later  editions  or  reprints  are  those  by 
y.  Kayser,  Paderborn,  1865;  H.  Hurter,  Innsbruck,  1872  (Ss.  Patr.  opusc. 
sel.,  xix);  F.  Leonard,  Namur,  1881 ;  T.  H.  Bindley,  London,  1889.  Vizzini, 
Bibliotheca  Ss.  Patrum,  Rome,  1902 — 1903,  series  iii,  voll.  i  ii  iii  iv  v, 
has  edited  the  Apologeticum  (according  to  Havercamp's  text),  De  prae- 
scriptione  haereticorum,  De  testimonio  animae,  De  baptismo,  De  poeni- 
tentia,  De  oratione,  De  pudicitia,  Adversus  Marcionem,  Adversus  Valenti- 
nianos.  P.  de  Lagarde  published  a  new  recension  of  the  Apologeticum,  in  Ab- 
handlungen  der  k.  Gesellsch.  d.  Wissensch.  zu  Gottingen,  1891,  xxxvii.  73  ff. 
C.  Callcvaert,  Le  codex  Fuldensis,  le  meilleur  manuscrit  de  rApologeticum 
de  Tertullien,  in  Revue  d'hist.  et  de  liter,  religieuses  (1902),  vii.  322 — 353. 
For  the  ancient  Greek  version  see  Harnack,  in  Texte  und  Untersuchungen 
(1892),  viii.  4,  i — 36.  The  relation  between  the  Apologeticum  and  the  Ad 
nationes  is  treated  by  v.  Hartel ,  Patristische  Studien,  ii.  The  letter  Ad 
Scaptdam,  with  the  De  praescriptione  and  the  Ad  martyres,  were  edited  anew 
by  T.  H.  Bindley,  Oxford,  1894.  For  the  Adversus  ludaeos  see  P.  Corssen, 
Die  Altercatio  Simonis  ludaei  etTheophili  Christiani,  Berlin,  1890,  pp.  2 — 9; 
E.  Noldechen,  in  Texte  und  Untersuchungen,  (1894),  xii.  2;  j.  M.  Ein- 
siedler ,  De  Tertulliani  adv.  ludaeos  libro  (Dissert.  Inaug.),  Vienna,  1897. 
Noldechen  maintains  the  genuineness  and  unity  of  the  work ;  Einsiedler,  on 
the  contrary,  holds  that  with  a  few  exceptions  the  second  part  is  owing 
to  a  later  compiler. 

1  Comm.  in  Dan.   ad  ix.   24  IT. 

184  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

4.  DOGMATICO-POLEMICAL  WORKS.  -  -  Apart  from  its  local  and 
immediate  purpose,  the  defence  of  Catholic  doctrine  in  general,  or 
the  refutation  of  heresy  as  such,  was  the  theme  of  Tertullian  in  his 
imperishable  work  De  praescriptione  haereticorum,  a  title  vouched  for 
by  the  oldest  and  best  manuscripts.  Praescriptio  is  a  form  of  de 
fence  in  civil  procedure  based  on  length  of  possession;  its  result  is 
to  exclude  the  accuser  at  the  very  opening  of  the  process.  It  is 
admitted  by  all  that  the  Lord  confided  to  the  Apostles  the  preaching 
of  His  doctrine;  therefore  only  the  churches  founded  by  them,  and 
not  heretics,  can  be  admitted  to  testify  in  regard  to  Christian  truth. 
This  is  a  consequence  of  the  principalitas  veritatis  et  posteritas 
mendacitatis  (c.  31).  Catholic  doctrine  is  that  which  existed  from 
the  beginning,  and  is  therefore  the  true  one;  every  heresy  is  an 
innovation  and  as  such  necessarily  false.  The  appeal  of  heretics  to 
the  Holy  Scriptures  is  clearly  unjustifiable,  for  they  are  the  property 
of  the  Catholic  Church,  which  received  them  from  the  Apostles. 
Previous  to  his  discussion  and  demonstration  of  the  thesis  of  pre 
scription  by  possession  (cc.  15—40),  Tertullian  treats  at  some  length 
of  the  origin  and  nature  of  heresy  (cc.  I  — 14);  in  conclusion  he  calls 
attention  to  the  lack  of  moral  gravity  and  of  religious  earnestness  visible 
among  heretics;  they  manifest  themselves  thereby  as  followers  of 
falsehood  (cc.  41 — 44).  This  work  stands  as  a  classic  defence  of  the 
Catholic  principle  of  authority  and  tradition.  It  is  a  development  of 
the  theory  of  St.  Irenaeus1,  set  forth  with  the  skill  of  a  jurist. 
Tertullian  wrote  it  while  still  a  Catholic,  probably  before  any  of  his 
writings  against  individual  heretics  (cf.  c.  44). 

Among  the  latter  works  the  Adversus  Marcionem  libri  v  is  easily 
pre-eminent;  he  revised  it  twice  before  it  reached  its  present  form 
(i.  i).  The  first  book  in  its  third  (and  surviving)  form  was  edited 
in  207,  «in  the  fifteenth  year  of  the  emperor  Severus»  (i.  15);  it  is 
not  possible  to  determine  more  closely  at  what-  intervals  the  other 
four  books  followed.  In  the  first  two  he  refutes  Marcion's  doctrine  of 
a  good  God  and  a  Creator-God,  the  latter  at  once  just  and  wicked. 
There  cannot  be  a  good  God  other  than  the  Creator  of  the  world 
(book  i);  the  Creator  is  rather  the  one  true  God,  to  whom  belong 
all  the  attributes  with  which  the  Marcionites  clothe  their  good  God 
(book  ii).  In  the  third  book  he  proves  that  the  historical  Christ  is 
the  Messias  foretold  in  the  Old  Testament.  The  two  remaining  books 
are  a  critique  of  the  New  Testament  according  to  Marcion;  in  the 
fourth  he  discusses  the  «evangelium»,  in  the  fifth  the  «apostolicum» 
(§  25>  7)-  Adversus  Hermogenem  was  probably  written  after  De prae 
scriptione;  in  it  he  attacks  with  philosophical  and  scriptural  weapons 
the  dualism  of  the  Gnostics.  It  was  called  forth  by  the  teaching  of 

~  Adv.   haer.,   iii. ;   cf.  §  34,   3. 

§    50-      TERTULLIAN.  185 

the  painter  Hermogenes  (at  Carthage?)  that  God  had  not  created  the 
world.  He  only  fashioned  it  out  of  matter  that  had  existed  from  all 
eternity.  Hermogenes  claimed  also  for  his  teaching  the  authority  of 
Scripture.  Tertullian  is  already  a  Montanist  in  the  Adversus  Valen- 
linianos  (c.  5).  Its  composition  is  posterior  (c.  16)  to  that  of  the  work 
against  Hermogenes ;  in  it  he  is  content  to  describe  the  doctrine  of  his 
adversaries  according  to  St.  Irenaeus  *  and  to  cover  them  with  ridicule. 
We  do  not  know  that  he  ever  published  the  scientific  criticism  of  the 
Valentinian  Gnosis  promised  in  this  work  (cc.  3  6).  He  composed  the 
De  baptismo  while  still  a  Catholic,  in  order  to  solve  the  doubts  raised 
among  the  Christians  of  Carthage  by  the  rationalistic  objections  that 
a  certain  Quintilla  (the  proper  reading,  c.  i)  was  urging  against  the 
ecclesiastical  teaching  concerning  baptism.  He  declared  all  heretical 
baptism  invalid  (c.  15).  The  Scorpiace,  or  antidote  against  the  bites 
of  the  scorpion,  is  a  booklet  against  the  Gnostics  whom  he  compares 
to  scorpions.  Its  purpose  is  to  show  the  moral  worth  and  meritorious 
nature  of  martyrdom ;  it  was  very  probably  published  after  the  second 
book  against  Marcion  (c.  5).  The  De  came  Christi  is  a  polemical 
work  against  the  Gnostic  Docetism  of  Marcion,  Apelles,  Valentinus, 
and  Alexander ;  he  proves  that  the  body  of  Christ  was  a  real  human 
body,  taken  from  the  virginal  body  of  Mary,  but  not  by  the  way  of 
human  procreation.  It  is  here  that  we  meet  (c.  9)  his  eccentric 
notion,  otherwise  in  keeping  with  his  extreme  realism,  that  the  appear 
ance  of  Christ  was  unseemly.  He  cites  in  this  work  among  other 
Christian  sources  his  own  fourth  book  against  Marcion  (c.  7).  The 
large  work  De  resurrectione  carfiis,  also  against  the  Gnostics,  seems 
(c.  2)  to  have  been  published  immediately  after  the  De  carne  Christi. 
It  reviews  (cc.  3  —  17)  the  arguments  furnished  by  reason  in  favor  of 
the  resurrection  of  the  body,  illustrates  at  length  the  pertinent  texts 
of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  (cc.  18 — 55),  and  discusses  the 
nature  and  qualities  of  the  risen  body  (cc.  56 — 63).  In  the  closing 
chapters  he  lays  especial  stress  on  the  substantial  identity  of  the 
risen  with  the  actual  body.  Adversus  Praxeam,  probably  the  last 
of  his  anti-heretical  writings,  certainly  written  long  after  his  definitive 
exit  from  the  Church,  defends  the  ecclesiastical  teaching  concerning 
the  Trinity  against  Patripassian  monarchianism.  In  his  defence  of 
the  personal  distinction  between  the  Father  and  the  Son  he  does 
not,  apparently,  avoid  a  certain  subordinationism.  Nevertheless  in 
many  very  clear  expressions  and  turns  of  thought  he  almost  forestalls 
the  Nicene  creed. 

New  editions,  or  reprints  of  old  editions,  of  the  De  praescriptione  have 
been  made  kyH.Hurter,  Innsbruck,  1870  1880  (SS.  Patr.  opusc.  sel.  ix); 
E.  PreuscJmi,  Freiburg,  1892  (Sammlung  ausgewahlter  kirchen-  und  dogmen- 
geschichtl.  Quellenschriften ,  iii);  T.  H.  Bindley,  Oxford,  1894.  Vizzini's 

1  Adv.  haer.,   i. 

1 86  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

edition  is  mentioned  on  p.  183.  L.  Lehanneur }  Le  traite  de  Tertullien 
centre  les  Valentiniens,  Caen,  1886.  De  baptismo  is  also  in  Hurter,  1.  c., 
Innsbruck,  1869,  vii.  R.  A.  Lipsius ,  Uber  Tertullians  Schrift  wider 
Praxeas,  in  Jahrb.  fiir  deutsche  Theol.  (1868),  xiii.  701 — 724.  —  Th.  Scher- 
mann ,  Lateinische  Parallelen  zu  Didimus  (in  De  baptismo),  in  Rom. 
Quartalschr.  fiir  christl.  Altertumskunde  und  fiir  Kirchengesch.  (1902),  xvi. 
232 — 242.  E.  Heintzel,  Hermogenes,  der  Hauptvertreter  des  philosophi- 
schen  Dualismus  in  der  alten  Kirche,  Berlin,  1902.  E.  von  der  Goltz,  Die 
Traktate  des  Tertullian  und  Cyprian  iiber  das  Gebet,  in  «Das  Gebet  in 
der  altesten  Christenheit»,  Leipzig,  1901,  pp.  279 — 287. 

5.  PRACTICO-ASCETICAL  WRITINGS.  -  The  spirited  treatise  De 
patientia  especially  interests  all  readers  of  Tertullian ,  because  in  a 
sense  addressed  to  its  own  impatient  author.  He  was  to  find  a 
certain  consolation  in  speaking  of  the  beauty  and  sublimity  of  patience, 
even  as  the  sick  delight  in  speaking  of  the  value  of  health  (c.  i). 
The  book  surely  belongs  to  the  Catholic  period  of  his  life,  as  does 
also  De  oratione  destined  for  the  Catechumens.  In  the  latter  he 
undertakes  to  explain  the  Lord's  Prayer  (cc.  2 — 9),  gives  various  in 
structions  on  the  value  of  prayer  in  general  (cc.  10 — 28)  and  ends 
with  a  moving  description  of  its  power  and  efficacy  (c.  29).  In  De 
paenitentia  he  treats  of  penance  at  length,  of  the  penitential  temper, 
the  practice  of  penance,  and  of  two  kinds  of  penance  peculiar  to  the 
early  Church :  that  which  an  adult  was  expected  to  perform  before 
baptism  (cc.  4 — 6)  and  the  so-called  canonical  penance  that  the 
baptised  Christian  had  to  undergo  after  the  commission  of  such  grave 
sins  as  homicide,  idolatry  and  sins  of  the  flesh,  before  being  reconciled 
with  the  Church  (cc.  7—12).  In  his  Montanist  work  De  pudicitia  he 
directly  contradicts  the  teaching  of  this  Catholic  work  on  penance. 
His  change  of  attitude  was  occasioned  by  the  decree  of  Pope  Callixtus 
(217 — 222)  that  henceforth  sins  of  adultery  and  fornication  would  be 
remitted  those  who  had  fulfilled  the  canonical  penance  (c.  i).  In 
this  work  Tertullian  laments  with  bitterness  the  decadence  of  virtue 
and  righteousness,  attacks  violently  the  «psychici»,  a  name  given  to 
the  Catholics  in  opposition  to  the  «pneumatici»  or  Montanists,  and 
undertakes  to  show  that  the  Church  cannot  remit  such  grave  sins  as 
adultery  and  fornication  (c.  4).  The  beautiful  letter  Ad  martyres, 
written  certainly  (c.  6)  in  197,  contains  words  of  consolation  and 
exhortation  to  a  number  of  Christians  who  had  been  suffering  a  long 
imprisonment  for  their  faith,  and  were  in  daily  expectation  of  the 
final  summons.  Among  his  writings  are  several  on  Christian  marriage, 
especially  on  second  marriages.  The  earliest  and  most  attractive  is 
his  work  Ad  uxorem  in  two  books.  In  it  he  advises  his  wife  Esther 
not  to  remarry  after  his  death,  or  else  to  marry  no  one  but  a  Christian. 
As  a  Montanist,  however,  he  rejects  second  marriage  unconditionally. 
In  the  tractate  De  exhortatione  castitatis  addressed  to  a  widowed 
friend,  he  declares  that  a  second  marriage  is  simply  fornication  (non 


aliud  dicendum  erit  secundum  matrimonium  quam  species  stupri,  c.  9). 
In  De  monogamia,  written  somewhat  later,  about  217,  he  maintains 
the  same  opinion  with  even  less  reserve  (unum  matrimonium  novimus 
sicut  unum  Deum,  c.  i).  The  De  spectaculis  is  devoted  to  an  ex 
haustive  study  of  a  question  that  had  then  become  very  serious: 
Can  Christians  frequent  the  public  games  and  theatres  (spectacula)  of 
the  heathens?  His  answer  is  that  all  such  plays  are  intimately  cor 
related  with  the  idolatrous  worship  of  the  times  (cc.  4 — 13)  and 
necessarily  constitute  an  immediate  peril  for  Christian  morality  by 
reason  of  the  savage  passions  they  arouse  (cc.  14 — 30).  He  pours 
out  against  heathenism  all  the  hatred  of  his  soul  in  a  flaming  de 
scription  of  the  greatest  spectacle  the  world  shall  ever  behold,  the 
Second  Coming  of  the  Lord  or  the  Last  Judgment  (c.  30).  In  De 
idololatria,  posterior  (c.  13)  to  De  spectaculis,  and  written  very  pro 
bably  while  he  was  still  a  Catholic,  he  illustrates  in  every  sense  the 
duty  of  Christians  to  avoid  idolatry;  the  fine  arts  and  public  life  are 
entirely  permeated  with  it  and  cannot  therefore  offer  any  opening 
for  Christian  activity.  Quite  similar  are  the  contents  of  De  corona, 
written  probably  during  August  or  September  of  211,  apropos  of 
the  act  of  a  Christian  soldier  who  had  refused  to  put  on  a  crown  of 
flowers,  in  keeping  with  a  heathen  custom.  As  the  wearing  of  such 
a  crown  was  among  the  specific  rites  of  idolatry  (c.  7)  it  followed 
that  a  Christian  soldier  could  not,  on  principle,  accept  military  service 
(c.  n).  In  the  two  books  De  cultu  feminarum,  written  while  he  was 
still  a  Catholic,  he  thunders  against  female  vanity  in  the  matter  of 
dress  and  ornament.  It  is  only  in  the  Codex  Agobardinus  that  the 
first  book  bears  the  title  De  cultu  feminarum  ;  in  all  other  manuscripts 
it  is  known  as  De  habitu  muliebri;  moreover,  it  has  reached  us  in 
a  very  imperfect  state.  The  second  book  pursues  the  same  theme, 
and  is  composed  in  a  calmer  and  milder  spirit.  In  the  De  oratione 
(cc.  21  22)  he  had  maintained  that  Christian  virgins  should  always 
be  veiled  in  the  Church.  Some  dissented  from  his  views,  and  he 
returned  to  the  subject  in  a  special  treatise,  De  virginibus  velandis, 
in  which  he  appealed  to  the  Paraclete,  the  Holy  Scriptures  and  the 
discipline  of  the  Church,  and  went  beyond  his  former  demand  by 
insisting  that  these  virgins,  once  they  had  reached  the  age  of  ma 
turity,  should  be  always  and  everywhere  veiled.  De  fuga  in  per- 
secutione  is  a  Montanist  work ,  written  towards  the  close  of  212; 
it  forbids  as  absolutely  illicit  flight  of  any  kind  during  the  stress 
of  persecution.  De  ieiunio  adversus  psychicos  is  one  of  the  most 
offensive  of  his  Montanist  writings;  in  it  he  denounces  (c.  i)  the 
Catholics  as  gluttons  because  they  observe  a  certain  moderation  in 

De   patientia   is    printed   in  Hurter,    SS.  Patr.  opusc.  selecta,    iv;   also 
ib.)  De  oratione,  ii;    De  paenitentia,  v.     De  paenitentia  and  De  pudicitia 


were  edited  apart  by  E.  Preuschen,  Freiburg,  1891  (Sammlung  ausgewahlter 
Quellenschriften,  ii),  and  by  P.  de  Labriolle,  with  a  French  translation  (Coll. 
Hemmer  et  Lejay),  Paris,  1906,  Ixvii.  237.  Cf.  Preuschen,  Tertullians  Schrif- 
ten  De  paenitentia  tmd  De  pudicitia  mit  Riicksicht  auf  die  Buftdisziplin 
untersucht  (Inaug.-Diss.),  Tiibingen,  1890;  also  E.  Rolffs,  Das  Indulgenz- 
edikt  des  romischen  Bischofs  Kallist,  Leipzig,  1893  (Texte  und  Unter- 
suchungen,  xi.  3).  G.  Esser,  De  pudic.  c.  21  und  der  Primat  des  rom. 
Bischofs,  in  «Katholik»  (1903),  3,  193 — 220.  --  Ad  martyres  is  found  in 
Hurtcr,  1.  c.,  iv;  there  is  also  an  edition  by  T.  H.  Bindley,  Oxford,  1894. 
-  On  the  De  monogamia  see  Rolffs,  in  Texte  und  Untersuchungen 
(1895),  xii.  4,  50 — 109:  «Tertullians  Gegner  in  De  monogamia»  ;  cf.  §  35,  5. 
E.  Klussmann  has  published  an  excellent  separate  edition  of  De  specta- 
culis,  Leipzig,  1876.  See  his  Adnot.  crit.  ad  Tert.  libr.  de  spectac.,  Rudol- 
stadt,  1876.  For  the  purpose  and  the  sources  of  the  De  spectaculis  cf. 
E.  Noldcchen,  in  Zeitschr.  fur  wissenschaftl.  Theol.  (1894),  xxxvii.  91 — 125; 
Neue  Jahrb.  fiir  deutsche  Theol.  (1894),  iii.  206  —  226;  Zeitschr.  fur  Kirchen- 
gesch.  (1894 — 1895),  xv-  *6i —  203^  Philologus3  Suppl.  (1894),  vi.  2,  727 
to  766.  K.  Werber,  Tertullians  Schrift  De  spectac.  in  ihrem  Verhaltnis 
zu  Varros  Rerum  divinarum  libri  (Progr.),  Teschen,  1896.  On  the  De 
ieiunio  see  Rolffs,  1.  c.  (1895),  xii.  4,  5- — 49:  «Tertullians  Gegner  in  De 

6.  THE  «DE  ANIMA»  AND  «DE  PALLIO».  -  Two  works  of  Ter- 
tullian  do  not  fall  into  any  of  the  above-mentioned  groups ;  they  merit 
therefore  a  distinct  mention.  De  amma  belongs  to  his  Montanist 
period  (cc.  9  45  58)  and  was  written  after  the  second  book  against 
Marcion  (c.  21).  It  is  the  first  Christian  psychology,  though  less  a 
manual  of  philosophy  than  of  theology,  its  purpose  being  (c.  I — 3) 
to  describe  the  doctrine  of  the  soul  according  to  Christian  revelation 
and  to  refute  the  philosophic  or  rather  Gnostic  heresy  that  hid  itself 
beneath  the  cloak  of  philosophy.  The  first  section  (cc.  4 — 22)  deals 
with  the  nature  and  the  faculties  of  the  soul.  While  he  does  not 
deny  the  immaterial  character  of  the  latter,  he  believes  himself  bound 
to  maintain  a  certain  degree  of  corporeity;  for  a  condition  of  pure 
spirituality  was  unintelligible  to  him1.  In  the  second  section  (cc.  23 
to  41)  he  investigates  the  problem  of  the  specific  origin  of  each  soul, 
rejects  the  theories  of  pre-existence  and  of  metempsychosis,  and 
opposes  to  creatianism  the  crassest  generatianism  or  traducianism. 
In  the  act  of  generation  man  reproduces  his  whole  nature,  body  and 
soul.  The  third  section  (cc.  42 — 58)  treats  of  death,  sleep,  the  world 
of  dreams,  the  state  and  place  of  the  soul  after  death.  The  curious 
little  work  De  pallia,  written  between  209  and  21 1  (cf.  c.  2),  owes  its 
origin  to  a  personal  circumstance.  For  some  unknown  reason  Ter- 
tullian  had  put  off  the  toga  and  taken  to  wearing  the  pallium,  an  act 
that  drew  down  on  him  the  satire  of  his  fellow-citizens.  In  this  booklet 
he  justifies  his  conduct  with  playful  art  and  biting  sarcasm. 

Concerning   the   source    of  De    anima,    a   work    on    the    same    subject 
an.  c.  6)  by  Soramis ,    a  physician  of  Ephesus,    see  H.  Diels ,   Doxo- 

1  De  came  Christi,   c.    1 1  ;  Adv.  Praxeam,   c.   7. 

§    50-      TERTULLIAN.  189 

graph!  Graeci,  Berlin,  1890,  pp.  203  ff.  We  owe  to  Cl.  Salmasius  an  ex 
cellent  separate  edition  of  the  De  pallio,  Paris,  1622,  Leyden,  1656.  This 
latter  treatise  is  illustrated  by  H.  Kellner,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1870), 
Hi.  547 — 566,  and  by  G,  Boissier,  La  fin  du  paganisme,  Paris,  1891  (3.  ed., 
Paris,  1898),  i.  259—304. 

7.  LOST  WRITINGS  OF  TERTULLIAN.  —  Three  of  his  extant  Latin 
works,  he  tells  us,  were  written  also  in  Greek:  De  spectaculis1,  De 
baptismo  or  on  the  invalidity  of  heretical  baptism  (c.  15),  De  virginibus 
velandis  (c.  i).  The  Greek  text  of  these  writings  has  perished;  and 
similarly  the  Latin  text  of  a  still  larger  number  of  writings.  We 
know  from  his  own  statement  that  he  published  works  entitled  De 
spe  fide  Hum,  De  paradiso,  Adversus  Apelleiacos  (?),  De  censu  animae 
adversus  Hermogenwn,  De  fato.  De  spe  fide  Hum'2'  promoted  Chiliastic 
views  3.  In  De  paradiso  4  he  discussed  many  questions  concerning  Para 
dise  6 ;  among  other  things  he  maintained  the  thesis  that  all  departed 
souls,  except  those  of  the  martyrs,  must  wait  in  the  under-world 
« until  the  day  of  the  Lord»6.  Adversus  Apelleiacos  was  directed 
against  the  followers  of  Apelles  (§  25,  7)  who  held  that  not  God, 
but  a  superior  angel  had  created  this  world  and  was  afterwards  seized 
with  regret  for  -his  act7.  In  De  censu  animae  §,  «on  the  origin  of 
the  soul»,  he  refuted  the  doctrine  of  Hermogenes  that  the  soul  was 
material  in  its  origin,  and  there  was  in  man  no  such  thing  as  free 
will 9.  De  fato  was  written  against  the  teachings  of  the  philosophers 
concerning  fate  and  chance  10.  Through  St.  Jerome  we  know  of  three 
(or  rather,  perhaps,  five)  other  works  of  Tertullian.  One  of  them  was 
entitled  De  ecstasi,  or  rather  xspi  ixaraGzcoQ^,  perhaps  a  Greek  work 
in  defence  of  Montanism  or  the  ecstatic  speech  of  the  Montanist 
prophets.  It  was  originally  in  six  books,  but  when  he  had  read  the 
anti-Montanistic  work  of  Apollonius  (§  35,  3)  he  added  a  seventh 
book  against  the  latter.  A  work  on  marriage,  Ad  amicum  p kilo- 
sop  hum  de  angustiis  nuptiarum,  is  mentioned  twice  by  St.  Jerome 12. 
Another  lost  work  was  entitled  De  Aaron  vestibus,  on  the  liturgical 
garments  of  the  High  Priest  in  the  Old  Testament 13.  It  is  supposed 
that  he  wrote  two  other  works:  De  circumcisione  and  De  mundis 
atque  immundis  animalibus u.  The  index  of  the  Codex  Agobardinus 
shows  that  it  once  contained  three  works  of  Tertullian  entitled :  De 
carne  et  anima,  De  animae  submissione,  De  superstitione  saeculi; 
nothing  is  known  of  them  beyond  these  titles. 

I  Tert.,  De  corona,   c.   6.  2  Adv.   Marcion.,   iii.   24. 

*  Hicr.,  De  viris  ill.,   c.    18;   Comm.   in  Ezech.  ad  xxxvi.    I  ss. 

4  Tert.,  De  anima,   c.    55.  5  Id.,  Adv.   Marc  ,   v.    12. 

6  Id.,  De  anima,   c.   55.  7  Id.,  De  carne  Christi,   c.   8. 

8  Id.,  De  anima,   c     I.  °  Ib.,   cc.    I    3    n    21    22   24. 

10  Ib.,  c.  20 ;  see  the  citation  in  Planciades  Fulgentius:  Tertull.  opp.  (ed.  Ohler},  ii.  745. 

II  Hier.,  De  viris  ill.,   c.   53;   cf.   c.  40  and  also  c.   24.  12  Hier.,   Ep.   22,   22. 
13  Hier.,  Ep.  64,   23.              "     Id.,  Ep.  36,    i. 


8.  SPURIOUS  WRITINGS.  —  In  the  manuscripts  and  editions  there 
is  commonly  added  to  De  praescriptione,  as  an  appendix,  a  Libellus 
adversus  omnes  haerescs,  containing  a  list  of  heretics  from  Dositheus 
to  Praxeas.  The  work  is  surely  not  from  Tertullian's  pen,  but  rather 
from  that  of  Victorinus  of  Pettau  (§  58,  i).  The  principal  source 
used  by  its  author  was  the  so-called  Syntagma  of  Hippolytus 
(§  54,  3).  The  works  De  Trinitate  and  De  cibis  Judaicis ,  pu 
blished  in  the  editions  of  Tertullian,  were  written  by  Novatian 
(§  55>  2  3)-  A  fragment  De  execrandis  gentium  diis,  proving  from 
the  example  of  Jupiter  that  the  heathens  entertain  unworthy  notions 
of  the  divinity,  is  of  unknown  origin ;  the  diversity  of  style  shows  that 
it  cannot  belong  to  Tertullian.  Neither  is  he  the  author  of  the  poem 
Adversus  Marcionem  or  Adversus  Marcionitas  in  1302  hexameters 
and  five  books.  It  is  not  only  devoid  of  poetical  merit,  but  frequently 
violates  the  rules  of  grammar  and  prosody.  Hiickstadt  and  Oxe 
agree  in  attributing  it  to  the  latter  half  of  the  fourth  century,  the 
former  to  a  writer  in  Rome,  the  latter  to  one  in  Africa,  while  Waitz 
maintains  that  it  was  composed  by  Commodianus  (§  57). 

For  the  Libellus  adversus  omnes  haereses  (OeJiler,  1.  c.,  ii.  751 — 765) 
see  the  literature  on  the  Syntagma  of  Hippolytus  (§  54,  3).  E.  Hiickstadt, 
liber  das  pseudo  -  tertullianische  Gedicht  Adv.  Marcionem  (Inaug.-Diss.), 
Leipzig,  1875.  A.  Oxt,  Prolegomena  de  carmine  Adv.  Marcionitas  (Dissert, 
inaug.),  Leipzig,  1888;  also  Oxt,  Victorini  versus  de  lege  Domini,  em  un- 
edierter  Cento  aus  dem  Carmen  Adv.  Marcionitas  (Progr.),  Krefeld,  1894. 
H.  Waitz,  Das  pseudo -tertullianische  Gedicht  Adv.  Marcionem,  Darm 
stadt,  1901.  For  the  poems  DC  gcnesi  cf.  Oehler,  1.  c.,  ii.  774—776 
(§  88,  2),  De  Sodoma  and  De  lona  ib.,  ii.  769  —  773  (§  88,  2).  See  §  116,  5 
for  the  poem  De  iudicio  Domini  (Oehler,  1.  c. ,  ii.  776—781),  also  found 
amidst  the  works  of  Cyprian  (ed.  Hartel,  iii.  308-325)  where  it  is  entitled 
Ad  Flavin  m  Fclicem  de  resurrectione  mortuorum. 

§  51.     St.   Cyprian. 

I.  His  LIFE.  -  One  of  the  most  attractive  figures  in  early  eccle 
siastical  literature  is  the  noble  bishop  of  Carthage,  Thascius  Csecilius 
Cyprianus.  The  Vita  Caccilii  Cypriani,  which  describes  his  con 
version  to  the  Christian  faith,  was  written  soon  after  his  death  by 
one  closely  related  to  him  and  thoroughly  informed1  according  to 
St  Jerome  by  his  deacon  and  companion  Pontius.  From  his  own 
writings,  however,  especially  from  his  correspondence,  we  acquire  a 
better  knowledge  of  his  life  both  private  and  public.  He  was  born 
about  the  year  200  in  Africa,  of  wealthy  heathen  parents,  embraced 
the  career  of  a  rhetorician  and  as  such  won  brilliant  renown  at 
Carthage2  About  246  he  was  converted  to  Christianity  by  C&- 
cilianus  (Vita  c.  4)  or  Caecilius3,  a  priest  of  Carthage,  soon  after 

1  Hier.,  De  viris  ill.,  c.   68.  *  Lact.,  Div.  Inst.,  v.    i,   24. 

'•'  Hier.,  De  viris  ill.,  c.  67. 

§    51-      ST.    CYPRIAN.  IQI 

which  he  was  admitted  among  the  clergy.  At  the  end  of  248  or 
early  in  249,  he  was  made  bishop  of  Carthage  and  metropolitan  of 
proconsular  Africa.  He  discharged  the  duties  of  this  office  during 
ten  stormy  years  with  indefatigable  zeal  and  great  success.  In  the 
sanguinary  persecution  of  Decius  (250 — 251),  during  which  he  fled 
from  Carthage  and  kept  himself  in  concealment,  many  renounced 
the  Christian  faith  and  were  known  as  sacrificati  or  thurificati, 
libellatici,  acta  facientes.  The  question  regarding  the  treatment  of 
these  lapsi  or  rather  the  conditions  of  their  reconciliation  with  the 
Church  led  to  a  schism  at  Carthage  as  well  as  at  Rome.  The 
deacon  Felicissimus  became  the  leader  of  a  party  which  reproached 
Cyprian  with  his  great  severity,  while  at  Rome  a  part  of  the  com 
munity  ranged  itself  under  the  banner  of  Novatian  and  withdrew 
from  communion  with  Pope  Cornelius  because  of  his  excessive  mildness 
in  the  treatment  of  similar  « fallen »  brethren.  The  controversy  on 
the  validity  of  heretical  baptism  was  the  occasion  of  other  grave 
disorders.  Cyprian  held  with  Tertullian  (§50,  47)  that  baptism 
administered  by  heretics  was  invalid;  he  therefore  baptized  anew 
all  who  returned  from  an  heretical  body  to  the  communion  of  the 
Church.  In  this  he  was  sustained  by  several  councils  that  met 
at  Carthage  under  his  presidency  in  255,  in  the  spring  of  256,  and 
Sept.  I.,  256.  But  Pope  Stephen  I.  rejected  their  views  and  de 
clared:  Si  qui  ergo  a  quacumqiie  Jiaeresi  venient  ad  vos ,  nihil 
innovctur  nisi  quod  tradition  est,  nt  manus  illis  imponatur  in  paeni- 
tentiam1.  The  ensuing  persecution  of  Valerian  and  the  death  of  the 
Pope  prevented  a  formal  conflict  between  Stephen  and  Cyprian.  The 
latter  was  beheaded,  September  14.,  258,  in  the  gardens  of  the  pro 
consular  Villa  Sexti,  not  far  from  Carthage;  the  Acta  proconsul  aria, 
or  official  record  of  his  execution,  are  still  extant. 

The  Vita  Caecilii  Cypriani  and  Acta  proconstdaria  are  usually  published 
with  the  works  of  Cyprian  (ed.  Hartel,  iii  [1871].  xc — cxiv).  -  -  C.  Suys- 
kenus ,  De  S.  Cypriano,  in  Acta  SS.  Sept.,  Arenice,  1761,  iv.  191 — 348. 
Fr.  IV.  Rettberg,  Thascius  Caecilius  Cyprianus,  Gottingen,  1831.  Fr.  Boh- 
ringer,  Die  Kirche  Christi  und  ihre  Zeugen,  2.  ed.,  iii— iv.  Die  lateinisch- 
afrikanische  Kirche :  Tertullianus,  Cyprianus,  Stuttgart,  1864,  reprinted  1873. 
C.  E.  Freppel ,  St.  Cyprien ,  Paris,  1865;  3.  ed.  1890.  J.  Peters,  Der 
hi.  Cyprian  von  Karthago,  Ratisbon,  1877.  -B-  Fechtrup,  Der  hi.  Cyprian, 
I,  Minister,  1878.  E.  Wh.  Benson,  Cyprian,  London,  1897.  P.  Monceaux, 
Histoire  litteraire  de  1'Afrique  chretienne.  II:  St.  Cyprien  et  son  temps, 
Paris,  1902.  Cf.  H.  Grisar,  Cyprians  «Oppositions-Konzil»  gegen  Papst 
Stephan,  in  Zeitschr.  ftir  kathol.  Theol.  (1881),  V.  193 — 221  (He  holds 
that  the  decision  of  Stephen  was  issued  not  before,  but  after  the  council  of 
September  i.  256).  -  -  y.  Ernst,  War  der  hi.  Cyprian  exkommuniziert ? 
Ib.,  1894,  xviii.  473—499  (he  was  not).  Id.,  Der  angebliche  Widerruf  des 
hi.  Cyprian  in  der  Ketzertauffrage,  ib.,  1895,  xix-  234~ 272-  F-  Kemper, 
De  vitarum  Cypriani,  Martini  Turonensis,  Ambrosii ,  Augustini  rationibus 
(Dissert.),  Mlinster,  1904. 

1   Cypr.,  Ep.   74,    I    (ed.  Hartel}. 



2.  HIS  WRITINGS. -- The  writings  of  Cyprian,  collected  at  a  very 
early  date,  were  read  with  diligence  and  zealously  multiplied.  Pontius 
himself  possessed  a  collection  of  the  treatises  of  Cyprian  and  has 
left  us  a  rhetorical  paraphrase  of  their  titles  or  themes  (Vita  c.  7). 
It  is  both  interesting  and  suggestive  to  note  that  in  an  ancient  and 
anonymous  Catalogue  of  the  Libri  Canonici  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments  (derived  from  a  copy  of  the  same  made  in  359)  the 
writings  of  Cyprian,  both  treatises  and  letters,  are  also  indicated, 
with  the  number  of  lines  contained  in  each  (cum  indiculis  versuum). 
St.  Jerome  felt  that  he  was  not  bound  to  furnish  a  catalogue  of  the 
writings  of  Cyprian:  Huius  ingenii  superfluum  est  indie  em  texere, 
cum  sole  clariora  sint  eiits  opera1.  These  works  are  still  extant 
in  almost  countless  manuscripts,  some  of  which  reach  back  to  the 
sixth  century.  So  far  as  we  know,  only  a  few  of  his  letters  have 
been  lost. 

His  writings  fall  spontaneously  into  two  groups:  treatises  (sermones, 
libelli,  tractatus)  and  letters.  The  voice  that  resounds  in  both  groups 
is  that  of  a  bishop  and  a  shepherd  of  souls.  He  is  a  man  of  prac 
tice  and  not  of  theory,  a  man  of  faith  and  not  of  speculation.  When 
he  takes  up  the  pen,  it  is  in  behalf  of  practical  aims  and  interests; 
thus,  where  oral  discourse  is  insufficient,  he  hastens  to  succour  the 
good  cause  with  his  writings.  He  does  not  go  far  afield  in  theoretical 
discussion,  but  appeals  to  the  Christian  and  ecclesiastical  sentiments 
of  his  hearers,  and  bases  his  argument  on  the  authority  of  the  Sacred 
Scriptures.  He  exhibits  on  all  occasions  a  spirit  of  moderation  and 
mildness  and  a  remarkable  power  of  organization.  He  never  loses 
himself  in  pursuit  of  intangible  ideals  but  follows  consistently  the 
aims  that  he  has  grasped  with  clearness  and  decision.  St.  Augustine 
outlined  his  character  correctly  when  he  called  him  a  Catholic  bishop 
and  a  Catholic  martyr  (catholicum  episcopum,  catholicum  martyr  em)*. 
The  central  idea  of  his  life  is  the  unity  of  the  Catholic  Church;  it 
has  been  rightly  said  that  this  concept  is  like  the  root  whence  issue 
all  his  doctrinal  writings.  Indeed,  he  is  nowhere  so  independent  and 
original  as  in  his  work  De  catholicae  ecclesiae  unit  ate.  In  his  other 
works  he  very  frequently  borrows  from  Tertullian3;  we  learn  from 
the  same  source  that  he  read  the  works  of  that  writer  every  day.  It 
was  his  wont  when  calling  on  his  secretary  for  a  book  of  Tertullian 
to  exclaim:  Da  magistrum^.  At  the  same  time,  whatever  the  degree 
of  his  literary  dependency,  his  own  personality  is  apparent  in  every 
one  of  his  writings.  The  thoughts  of  Cyprian  may  be  close  akin  to 
the  thoughts  of  Tertullian,  but  the  form  in  which  the  bishop  of 
Carthage  clothes  these  thoughts  differs  widely  from  the  style  of 
Tertullian.  The  diction  of  Cyprian  is  free  and  pleasing,  and  flows 

1  De  viris  ill.,   c.   67.  2  Aug.,  De  bapt.,  iii.   3,    5. 

3  Hur.,  Ep.   84,   2.  -1  Hie?:,  De  viris  ill.,   c.   53. 

§    51-      ST.    CYPRIAN.  193 

in  a  tranquil  and  clear,  almost  transparent  stream  1.  His  language  is 
at  all  times  enlivened  and  exalted  by  the  warmth  of  his  feelings. 
Quite  frequently  the  page  is  colored  by  images  and  allegories  chosen 
with  taste  and  finished  with  skilful  attention  to  the  smallest  detail; 
not  a  few  of  them  became  more  or  less  the  common  places  of  later 
ecclesiastical  literature. 

The  Catalogue  of  the  Libri  Canonid  and  the  works  of  Cyprian,  be 
longing  to  the  year  359,  was  first  edited  by  Th.  Mommsen ,  in  Hermes 
(1886),  xxi.  142 — 156;  cf.  (1890),  xxv.  636 — 638.  On  the  same  theme  see 
W.  Sanday  and  C.  H.  Turner,  in  Studia  biblica  et  ecclesiastica ,  Oxford 
1891,  iii.  217 — 325.  K.  G.  Gotz,  Geschichte  der  cyprianischen  Literatur  bis 
zu  der  Zeit  der  ersten  erhaltenen  Handschriften  (Inaug. -Diss.),  Basle, 
1891.  --  On  the  manuscripts  of  Cyprian  cf.  Hartel,  in  his  own  edition 
(1871),  iii.  i — LXX;  also  Harnack,  Geschichte  der  altchristl.  Literatur,  i.  697 
to  701.  C.  H.  Turner,  The  original  order  and  contents  of  our  oldest 
Ms.  of  St.  Cyprian,  in  Journal  of  Theol.  Studies  (1902),  iii.  282 — 285;  A 
newly  discovered  leaf  of  a  fifth-century  manuscript  of  St.  Cyprian,  ib.,  iii. 
576 — 578;  Our  oldest  manuscripts  of  St.  Cyprian:  The  Turin  and  Milan 
Fragment,  ib. ,  iii.  579 — 584.  Dom  Ramsay,  Our  oldest  manuscripts  of 
St.  Cyprian,  ib.,  iii.  585  —  594. 

The  complete  works  of  Cyprian  were  first  published  by  J.  Andreas, 
Rome,  1471.  Then  followed  the  editions  of  D.  Erasmus,  Basle,  1520;  J.  Pa- 
meliuSj  Antwerp.  1568  ;  M.  Rigaltius,  Paris,  1648  ;  J.  Fell  and  J.  Pearson,  Ox 
ford,  1682;  Stephen  Baluzius  and  Pr.  Maranus,  Paris,  1726.  The  edition  of 
Migne  (PL.  iii — v)  reproduces,  very  incorrectly,  the  text  of  Baluzius  and 
Maranus.  The  most  recent  and  the  best  edition  of  the  works  of  St.  Cyprian 
is  that  of  W,  von  Hartel ,  Vienna,  1868 — 1871,  in  three  parts  (Corpus 
scriptorum  eccl.  Lat. ,  iii,  pars  i — iii).  For  a  criticism  of  the  Hartel 
edition  cf.  P.  de  Lagarde,  in  Gottinger  Gelehrten  Anzeigen  (1871),  pp.  521 
to  543  (reprinted  in  P.  de  Lagarde ,  Symmikta,  Gottingen,  1877,  pp.  65 
to  78).  --  G.  Mercati,  D'alcuni  nuovi  sussidii  per  la  critica  del  testo  di 
S.  Cypriano,  Rome,  1899.  A  German  version  of  most  of  the  treatises  was 
published  by  U.  Ukl,  Kempten,  1869,  and  all  the  letters  by  J.  Niglutsch 
and  A.  Egger,  ib. ,  1879  (Bibl.  der  Kirchenvater).  -  -  Le  Provost,  Etude 
philologique  et  litteraire  sur  St.  Cyprien,  Pans,  1889.  E.  W.  Watson,  The 
style  and  language  of  St.  Cyprian,  in  Studia  bibl.  et  eccles.,  Oxford,  1896, 
iv.  189 — 324.  L.  Bayard,  Le  latin  de  St.  Cyprien,  Paris,  1902.  E.  de 
Jonghe ,  Les  clausules  de  Saint  Cyprien,  in  Muse'e  Beige  (1902),  vi.  344 
to  363. 

For  the  doctrine  of  St.  Cyprian  cf.  J.  Peters ,  Die  Lehre  des  hi.  Cy 
prian  von  der  Einheit  der  Kirche,  Luxemburg,  1870.  J.  H.  Reinkens, 
Die  Lehre  des  hi.  Cyprian  von  der  Einheit  der  Kirche,  Wiirzburg,  1873. 
De  Leo ,  In  librum  S.  Cypr.  De  imitate  ecclesiae  disquisitio  critico-theo- 
logica,  Naples,  1877.  O.  Ritschl ,  Cyprian  von  Karthago  und  die  Ver- 
fassung  der  Kirche,  Gottingen,  1885.  J.  de  la  Rochclle,  L'idee  de  1'eglise 
dans  St.  Cyprjen,  in  Revue  d'histoire  et  de  litterature  religieuses  (1896), 
i.  519 — 533.  P.  v,  Hoensbroech,  Der  romische  Primat  bezeugt  durch  den 
hi.  Cyprian,  in  Zeitschr.  fiir  kathol.  Theol.  (1890),  xiv.  193 — 230;  Id.,  Zur 
Auffassung  Cyprians  von  der  Ketzertaufe,  ib.  (1891),  xv.  727 — 736.  J.  Ernst, 
Zur  Auffassung  Cyprians  von  der  Ketzertaufe,  ib.  (1893),  xvii.  79 — 103. 
K.  G.  Gotz,  Die  Bufilehre  Cyprians,  Konigsberg,  1894.  K.  Miiller,  Die  Buli- 

1  Lact.,  Div.  Inst.,  v.   i,   25;   liter.,  Ep.   58,    10. 
BARDENHEV/ER-SHAHAN,  Patrology.  13 



institution  in  Karthago  unter  Cyprian,  in  Zeitschr.  fur  Kirchengesch.  (1895 
to  1896),  xvi.  i — 44,  187 — 219.  K.  G.  Gotz,  Das  Christentum  Cyprians,  Gieften, 
1896.  K.  H.  Wirth  y  Der  «Verdienst»-Begriff  in  der  christl.  Kirche  nach 
seiner  geschichtlichen  Entwicklung  dargestellt;  II:  Der  «Verdienst»-Begriff 
bei  Cyprian,  Leipzig,  1901.  A.  Melardi,  S.  Cypriano  di  Cartagine:  con 
tribute  all' apologetica  latina  del  3.  secolo,  Potenza,  1901.  ---  P.  Corssen, 
Der  cyprianische  Text  der  Acta  apostol.  (Progr.),  Berlin,  1892.  J.  Heiden- 
reich,  Der  neutestamentliche  Text  bei  Cyprian  verglichen  mit  dem  Vulgata- 
text,  Bamberg,  1900.  A.  Harnack,  Cyprian  als  Enthusiast,  in  Zeitschr.  fur 
die  neutestamentl.  Wissensch.  (1902),  iii.  177  — 191.  P.  St.  John,  A  dis 
puted  point  in  St.  Cyprian's  attitude  towards  the  Primacy,  in  American 
Ecclesiastical  Review  (1903),  xxix.  162 — 182.  J.  P.  Knaabe ,  Die  Pre- 
digten  des  Tertullian  und  Cyprian,  in  Theol.  Studien  und  Kritiken  (1903), 
Ixxvi.  606 — 639. 

3.  TREATISES.  -  Pontius  mentions1  eleven  or  twelve  treatises 
of  Cyprian  in  the  following,  perhaps  also  the  chronological,  order: 
a)  Ad  Donatum,  an  outpouring  of  his  heart  addressed  to  an  other 
wise  unknown  friend,  for  whom  he  depicts  the  new  life  entered  on 
by  baptismal  regeneration;  it  was  probably  composed  shortly  after 
his  conversion.  The  poetical  form  and  the  style  of  the  treatise  betray 
the  former  rhetorician2,  b)  De  habitu  virginum  (in  the  Catalogue 
of  359:  Ad  virgines],  a  pastoral  letter  to  women,  especially  to  those 
virgins  who  had  dedicated  themselves  to  the  service  of  the  Lord. 
Cyprian  calls  them  «the  blossoms  on  the  tree  of  the  Church »  (c.  3). 
He  puts  them  on  their  guard  particularly  against  vanity  in  dress. 
This  treatise  resembles  very  much  the  De  cultu  feminarum  of  Tertullian. 
c)  De  lapsis,  composed  in  the  spring  of  251,  immediately  after  the 
persecution  of  Decius  and  his  own  return  to  Carthage.  In  it  he 
laments  most  touchingly  the  apostasy  of  so  many  brethren  ;  their  recon 
ciliation  must  depend  on  a  good  confession  and  the  performance  of 
a  corresponding  penance,  d)  To  the  same  year  belongs  the  immortal 
work  De  catholicae  ecclesiae  imitate,  a  forcible  exposition  and  defence 
of  the  Church,  to  which  alone  were  made  the  promises  of  salvation, 
and  not  to  the  schisms  at  Rome  and  Carthage.  Christ  founded  His 
Church  on  one,  on  Peter ;  the  unity  of  the  foundation  guarantees  that  of 
the  edifice.  Schism  and  heresy  are  the  weapons  of  Satan.  That  person 
cannot  God  for  his  Father  who  has  not  the  Church  for  his  mother 
(habere  non  potest  Deum  patrem,  qui  ecclesiam  non  habet  matrem, 
c.  6).  e)  The  treatise  of  Cyprian  De  dominica  oratione,  written  about 
the  beginning  of  252,  is  similar  in  its  contents  to  Tertullian's  De 
oratione,  and  is  important  chiefly  for  its  lengthy  exposition  of  the  Lord's 
Prayer  (cc.  7—27),  a  feature  that  made  it  much  beloved  in  Christian 
antiquity3,  f)  Ad Demetrianum,  probably  composed  early  in  252,  and 
markedly  apologetic  in  tendency.  The  sufferings  of  these  unhappy 
times,  war,  pestilence  and  famine,  which  the  heathen  to  whom  he 

Vita  c-    7-  2  Aug.,  De  doctr.   christ.,   iv.    14,   31. 

'•'  ////.,  Comm.   in  Matth.,   v.    i. 

§    51-      ST.    CYPRIAN.  195 

writes  attributed  to  the  Christian  contempt  of  the  gods,  are  really 
divine  punishments,  inflicted  on  account  of  the  obstinacy  and  wickedness 
of  the  heathens,  and  in  particular  of  their  persecution  of  the  Christians. 
g)  The  De  mortalitate  owes  its  origin  to  a  pestilence  that  raged  at 
Carthage  and  in  the  neighborhood,  especially  from  252 — 254.  It  is 
such  a  discourse  of  consolation  as  a  bishop  might  deliver,  and  breathes 
in  every  line  a  magnanimity  of  soul  and  a  power  of  faith  that  are 
most  touching.  The  fact  that  the  pestilence  carried  off  both  the 
faithful  and  the  unbelievers  ought  not  to  surprise  the  former,  since 
by  word  and  example  the  Scripture  makes  known  to  all  Christians 
that  it  is  their  especial  destiny  to  suffer  trial  and  tribulation.  Temptation 
is  only  the  prelude  of  victory,  trial  an  occasion  of  merit,  and  death 
the  transit  to  a  better  life,  h)  The  De  op  ere  et  eleemosynis,  an  ex 
hortation  to  efficacious  charity  towards  our  neighbor,  owes  its  origin, 
probably,  to  similar  circumstances.  Almsgiving  is,  in  a  certain  sense, 
a  means  of  obtaining  grace;  it  appeases  the  divine  wrath  and  atones 
for  our  postbaptismal  faults  and  entitles  us  to  a  higher  degree  of 
celestial  happiness,  i)  De  bono  patientiae  was  written  during  the 
conflict  concerning  heretical  baptism  *,  very  probably  in  the  summer  of 
256  in  the  hope  of  calming  the  irritation  and  anger  of  his  opponents, 
and  as  a  pledge  of  the  author's  own  anxiety  for  the  restoration  of 
peace.  It  draws  largely  on  the  De  patientia  of  Tertullian.  k)  De 
zelo  et  livore  was  probably  meant  to  complete  the  preceding  treatise; 
it  is  at  once  the  work  of  a  reconciling  arbiter  and  a  deciding 
judge.  Envy  and  jealousy  are  poisonous  growths  that  often  strike 
deep  roots  in  the  soil  of  the  Church,  and  bring  forth  the  most  de 
plorable  fruits:  hatred,  schism,  dissatisfaction,  insubordination.  1)  Ad 
Fortunatum  is  a  collection  of  passages  from  Holy  Writ  put  together 
at  the  request  of  the  recipient,  and  likely  to  confirm  the  faithful  soul 
in  the  tempest  of  persecution,  which  we  assume  to  be  that  of  Valerian, 
that  had  been  raging  since  the  middle  of  257.  Thirteen  theses 
relative  to  this  grievous  trial  are  set  forth ;  each  of  them  is  con 
firmed  by  quotations  from  the  Bible,  m)  Pontius  appears  to  have 
been  acquainted  with  another  treatise  that  encouraged  confessors  to 
be  brave  unto  the  end;  but  it  has  not  been  possible  to  identify  it 
with  any  certainty. 

J.  G.  Krabinger  published  excellent  editions  of  the  DC  catholicae  ec- 
clesiae  imitate,  De  lapsis,  De  habitu  virginum,  Tubingen,  1853,  also  of  the 
other  treatises,  Ad  Donatum ,  De  dominica  pratione ,  De  mortalitate ,  Ad 
Demetrianum,  DC  opere  et  eleemosynis,  De  bono  patientiae,  De  zelo  et  livore, 
Tubingen,  1859.  //  Hwter,  Ss.  Patr.  opusc.  select.,  contains  in  vol.  I: 
Ad  Demetr.  and  De  cath.  ecd.  unit. ;  in  vol.  II :  De  dom.  orat.  \  in  vol.  IV : 
De  mortal.,  De  op.  et  eleem.  and  De  bono  pat.;  in  vol.  V:  DC  lapsis.  On 
the  De  opere  et  eleemosynis  cf.  E.  W.  Watson,  in  Journal  of  Theol.  Studies 
(1901),  ii.  433 — 438.  K.  G.  Gotz  has  tried  to  show,  but  without  success,  in 

1   Cypr.,  Ep.   73,   26. 



Texte  und  Untersuchungen,  xix,  new  series  (1899)  iv.  ic. ,  that  the  brief 
letter  Donatus  Cypriano  (ed.  Hartel,  iii.  272),  hitherto  held  to  be  spurious, 
is  really  the  beginning  of  the  treatise  Ad  Donatum.  Dom  Ramsay,  An 
Uncial  Fragment  of  the  Ad  Donatum  of  St.  Cyprian,  in  Journal  of  Theol. 
Studies  (1902),  iv.  86—89.  Concerning  De  hab.  virg.  cf.  J.  Haussleiter, 
in  Commentationes  Woelfflinianae,  Leipzig,  1891,  pp.  377— 389.  B.  Aube, 
L'Eglise  et  1'Etat  dans  la  seconde  moitie  du  me  siecle.  Paris,  1885,  PP-  3°5  n~> 
calls  in  doubt,  without  any  good  reason,  the  genuineness  ot  Ad  Demetrianum. 
In  the  Revue  Benedictine  (1902),  xix.  246 — 254,  J.  Chapman  began  a 
study  on  the  well-known  interpolations  in  De  catholicae  ecdesiae  unitate  in 
favor  of  the  Roman  Church,  hitherto  never  submitted  to  a  close  exami 
nation  ;  Id. ,  The  interpolations  in  St.  Cyprian's  De  unitate  ecclesiae ,  in 
Journal  of  Theol.  Studies  (1904),  v.  634—636;  cf.  E.  W.  Watson,  The 
interpolations  in  St.  Cyprian's  De  unitate  ecclesiae,  ib. ,  v.  432 — 436.  - 
P.  Franchi  de'  Cavalieri,  Un  nuovo  libello  originale  di  libellatici  della  per- 
secuzione  deciana,  in  Miscellanea  di  storia  e  cultura  eccles.  (1904).  L.  Cha- 
balier,  Les  lapsi  dans  1'Eglise  d'Afrique  au  temps  de  Saint  Cyprien  (These), 
Lyon,  1904. 

4.  TREATISES  (CONTINUED).  -  -  The  work  Ad  Quirinum   in  three 
books,    known    formerly   as    Testimoniorum    libri   adversus   Judaeos, 
contains  a  demonstration  of  the  rejection  of  the  Jews  and  the  vocation 
of  the  Christians  (book  i),  a  sketch  of  Christology  (book  ii),  and  an 
introduction  to  a  Christian  and  virtuous  life  (book  iii,  probably  a  later 
addition).    At  the  beginning  of  each  book  are  several  theses,  each  of 
which,  after  the  manner  of  the  treatise  Ad  Fortunatum,  is  in  its  turn 
proved  by  a  series  of  citations  from  Holy  Writ.   The  first  express  mention 
of  the  work  is  found  in  the  afore-mentioned  Catalogue  of  the  year  359. 
Before   that   date   several    ancient   writers   (Pseudo-Cyprian  Adversus 
aleatores,   Com  median,   Lactantius,    Firmicus   Maternus)    had  already 
made   good  use    of  its  Scriptural    treasures.     The  work   is    certainly 
authentic.     The  tractate   Quod  idola  dii  non  sint   is    largely  a  com 
pilation  from  the   Octavius   of  Minucius  Felix  and    the  Apologeticum 
of  Tertullian.    It  is  first  mentioned  by  St.  Jerome1.    The  authorship 
of  Cyprian  is  uncertain.     Haussleiter  maintains,   but  without  success, 
the  authorship  of  Novatian. 

B.  Dombart,  Uber  die  Bedeutung  Commodians  fur  die  Textkritik  der 
Testimonia  Cyprians,  in  Zeitschr.  fiir  wissenschaftl.  Theol.  (1879),  xxii.  374 
to  389.  For  the  genuineness  of  the  third  book  Ad  Quirinum  cf.  J.  Hauss 
leiter,  in  Comment.  Woelfflin.  (1891),  pp.  377  ff.  Dom  Ramsav,  On  early 
insertions  in  the  third  book  of  St.  Cyprian's  Testimonia,  in  Journal  of  Theol. 
Studies  (1901),  ii.  276—288.  See  also  C.  H.  Turner,  Prolegomena  to  the 
Testimonia  of  St.  Cyprian,  ib.  (1905),  vi.  246—270.  Concerning  the  origin 
of  Quod  idola  dii  non  sint  see  Haussleiter,  in  Theol.  Literaturblatt  (1894), 
xv.  481—487. 

5.  THE  LETTERS  OF  CYPRIAN.  -      The    collection    of  the  Letters 
of  Cyprian    contains,    in    the    latest   editions,    eighty-one    pieces    or 
numbers,  sixty-five  of  which  are  from  his  hand ;  the  others  are  mostly 

1  EP-  70,  5- 

§    51.      ST.    CYPRIAN.  197 

letters  addressed  to  him.  By  reason  of  its  very  copious  contents  this 
collected  correspondence  of  Cyprian  is  a  primary  source  of  authori 
tative  information  concerning  the  life  and  discipline  of  the  primitive 
Church.  All  the  letters  date  from  the  period  of  his  episcopal  rule  in 
Carthage  (248/249 — 2  5  8).  In  the  Vienna  or  Hartel  edition  of  1 87 1 ,  they 
are  numbered  according  to  the  Oxford  recension  of  1682;  but  later 
researches  render  necessary  certain  modifications  in  the  accepted  order 
of  the  correspondence.  The  letters  may  be  divided  into  the  following 
groups:  a)  Letters  whose  dates  cannot  be  ascertained;  they  are  I — 4 
and  63  (ed.  Hartel);  they  contain  no  references  to  contemporary 
persons  or  events,  and  probably  were  all  composed  before  the  per 
secution  of  Decius.  Letter  63,  entitled  in  the  manuscripts  ZV  sacra- 
mento  dominici  calicis ,  is  a  precious  confirmation  of  the  traditional 
Catholic  doctrine  concerning  the  sacrificial  character  of  the  Eucharist. 
b)  Letters  sent  to  Carthage  in  the  first  period  of  the  Decian  per 
secution  (250);  they  are  5 — 7  and  10 — 19,  and  were  addressed  from 
his  hiding  place  to  the  clergy  and  the  faithful  of  the  city.  They 
contain  exhortations  to  prudence,  to  perseverance  on  the  part  of  the 
confessors,  to  care  of  the  poor,  and  also  some  reproaches  and  de 
cisions  in  the  matter  of  the  lapsi  (15 — 19).  c)  The  correspondence 
of  Cyprian  (representing  the  clergy  of  Carthage)  with  the  Roman 
clergy  in  whose  hands  lay  the  government  of  the  Church  during  the 
vacancy  between  the  death  of  Fabian  and  the  succession  of  Cornelius 
(Jan.  250  to  March  251).  In  all  there  are  twelve  of  these  letters: 
8  9  20  21  22  27  28  30  31  35  36  37.  In  letter  20  Cyprian  justifies 
his  flight  and  explains  his  manner  of  dealing  with  the  lapsi;  he 
returns  to  the  same  subject  in  letters  27  and  35.  In  letters  30  and  36, 
the  Roman  clergy,  by  the  hand  of  Novatian,  assure  Cyprian  that 
they  are  in  full  agreement  with  him  as  to  the  treatment  of  the  lapsi. 

d)  Letters   sent   to  Carthage  in   the   last   period  of  the  Decian    per 
secution  (250 — 251);  they  are  23 — 26  29  32 — 34  38 — 43.    Of  these 
fourteen  letters  twelve  were  written  by  Cyprian;  with  the  exception 
of  two  they  were  addressed  to  the  clergy  and  the  faithful  of  Carthage. 
The    last    three    (41 — 43)    deal    with    the    schism    of    Felicissimus. 

e)  Letters  of  the  years  251 — 252,  relative  to  the  troubles  occasioned 
by  the   schism    of  Novatian,    and   numbered    44—55.     Scarcely  had 
Cyprian    been    accurately  informed    of  what  was  occurring   at  Rome, 
when   he  came  out  with    decisive  energy  in    favor  of  the   legitimate 
pope  Cornelius;    he    could    not,    however,    check   the   spread    of   the 
schism  into  Africa.     Among  the  twelve  letters  of  the  group  are  six 
from  Cyprian  to  Cornelius  and    two  replies    from    the  latter  (49   50). 

f)  Letters    of  the  years  252 — 254,    numbered    56 — 62  64 — 66,;    the 
contents  of  which  are  of  a  miscellaneous  nature.     Letter  57  was  sent 
by  a  Synod  of  Carthage  253  (?)  to  Pope  Cornelius  apropos  of  the  lapsi; 
letter  64  was  written  by  a  Carthaginian  provincial  Synod  in  252  (?)  to 

198  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

a  certain  bishop  Fidus,  and  treats  mostly  of  the  baptism  of  children, 
g)  Letters  of  the  years  254 — 256,  numbered  67 — 75.  Letter  67  is  a 
sy nodical  letter  in  the  matter  of  Basilides  and  Martial,  Spanish  bishops, 
who  had  been  deposed  as  lapsi;  while  letters  69 — 75  deal  with  the 
validity  of  heretical  baptism.  Letter  70  represents  the  opinions  of  the 
Synod  of  Carthage  held  in  255,  and  letter  72  the  decision  of  the  spring 
Synod  of  256,  both  dealing  with  the  subject  of  heretical  baptism. 
There  has  also  been  preserved  an  extract  from  the  minutes  of  the 
Synod  of  Carthage,  September  i.  256,  in  which  the  invalidity  of 
heretical  baptism  was  again  asserted  (Sententiae  episcopormn  numero 
LXXXVII  de  Jiaercticis  baptizandis).  It  is  usually  placed  not  among 
the  letters,  but  among  the  treatises  of  Cyprian.  Letter  74  reveals  in 
all  its  fulness  the  difference  of  opinion  between  Cyprian  and  Pope 
Stephen.  Concerning  letter  75  cf.  §  47,  7.  h)  Letters  written  during  the 
persecution  of  Valerian  (257-  258)  and  numbered  76 — Si.  In  letter  76 
we  have  an  admirable  message  of  consolation  from  the  exiled  bishop 
to  the  martyrs  in  the  mines.  In  letter  Si  the  shepherd  of  Carthage, 
while  awaiting  a  martyr's  death,  sends  to  his  flock  a  final  salutation. 

For  the  chronology  of  the  Letters  of  Cyprian  see  O.  Ritschl ,  De 
epistulis  Cypriani-cis  (Dissert,  inaug.),  Halle,  1885.  Id.,  Cyprian  von  Kar- 
thago  und  die  Verfassimg  der  Kirche,  Gottingen,  1885,  pp.  238 — 250. 
P.  Monceaux,  Chronologic  des  oeuvres  de  St.  Cyprien  et  des  conciles  Afri- 
cains  du  temps,  in  Revue  de  Philologie  (1900),  xxxii,  also  the  larger  work 
of  Monceaux  quoted  above  (i  of  this  §).  L.  Nelke,  Die  Chronologic  der 
Korrespondenz  Cyprians  und  der  pseudo-cyprianischen  Schriften  Ad  No- 
vatianum  und  Liber  de  rebaptismate  (Dissert.),  Thorn,  1902.  -  -  For  the 
correspondence  of  Cyprian  and  the  Roman  clergy  during  the  year  250  see 
A.  Harnack,  in  Theol.  Abhandlungen,  C.  v.  Weizsacker  gewidmet,  Frei 
burg,  1892,  pp.  1—36.  Concerning  letter  8  see  J.  Haussleiter,  Der  Auf- 
bau  der  altchristl.  Literatur,  Berlin,  1898,  pp.  16—33.  Letters  8  21  22 
and  23  24  are  written  in  popular  Latin;  they  have  been  edited  anew  by 
A.Miodotiski,  Anonymus  adv.  aleatores,  Erlangen  and  Leipzig,  1889,  pp.  112 
to  126.  On  Letter  42  cf.  E.  Watson,  Cyprianica,  in  Journal  of  Theol.  Studies 
(1902—1903),  iv.  131,  and  J.  Chapman,  The  order  of  the  Treatises  and 
Letters  m  the  Mss.  of  St.  Cyprian,  ib.,  iv.  103—123. 

The  Sententiae  episcoporum  are  found  in  Hartel ,  1.  c.,  i.  433—461. 
Nelke,  1.  c.,  locates  their  composition  about  255.  The  synodal  letters  57 
64  67  70  72  and  the  Sententiae  are  also  found  in  Routh,  Reliquiae  sacrae 
(2)  in.  93 — 131;  for  the  annotationes  see  pp.  132  —  217. 

A  Greek   version    of  the  Sententiae   was   first   published  (complete)  by 

P.  de  Lagarde,  Reliquiae  iuris  eccles.  antiquissimae  graece,  Leipzig,   1856, 

PP-  37— 55-    The  lost  letters  of  Cyprian  are  discussed  by  Harnack,  Gesch. 

altchristl.  Litteratur,  i.  692.     Id. ,    Uber  verlorene  Briefe    und  Akten- 

sich  aus  der  cyprianischen  Briefsammlung  ermitteln  lassen,   in 

lexte  und  Lntersuchungen,  new  series,  Leipzig,  1902,  viii.  2.    Fr.  v.  Soden, 

cypriamsche  Briefsammlung.    Geschichte   ihrer  Entstehung   und  Uber- 

heferung,  ib.,  new  series,  Leipzig,   1904,  x.  3. 

6.    SPURIOUS   WRITINGS.  -      The    glorious    name    of  Cyprian    was 
on  invoked  to  cover  many  an  supposititious  composition,     a)  The 

§    51.      ST.    CYPRIAN. 

De  laude  martyrii,  a  bombastic  sermon  in  praise  of  martyrdom, 
reminding  one  of  Vergil  rather  than  of  Holy  Writ,  must  be  looked  on 
as  spurious,  if  only  because  of  its  style.  Nevertheless,  it  figures  among 
the  works  of  Cyprian  in  the  Catalogue  of  359.  Harnack's  ascription 
of  the  authorship  to  Novatian  has  been  refuted  by  Weyman. 
b)  Adversus  Judaeos,  also  a  sermon,  which  in  vigorous  rhetorical 
diction  exhorts  Israel  to  enter  into  itself  and  do  penance ;  it  is  likewise 
quoted  as  a  work  of  Cyprian  in  the  Catalogue  of  359.  It  was  formerly 
supposed  that  the  Latin  text  was  a  translation  from  the  Greek,  but 
it  is  itself  the  original.  The  author  must  be  sought  for,  with  Harnack 
and  Landgraf,  among  the  friends  of  Novatian ;  possibly  it  was  written 
by  Novatian  himself,  c)  De  montibus  Sina  et  Sion,  written  in  popular 
Latin,  contains  some  obscure  remarks  on  the  relations  of  the  Old 
and  New  Testaments.  Harnack  refers  it  to  the  first  half  of  the  third 
century,  d)  De  spectaculis ,  against  the  frequentation  of  heathen 
plays  and  theatres,  is  based  on  the  homonymous  work  of  Tertullian. 
The  introduction  shows  that  it  was  written  by  a  bishop  living  at 
some  distance  from  his  flock.  Wolfflin  holds  it  to  be  a  genuine 
work  of  Cyprian;  Weymann  and  Demmler  maintain  that  it  belongs 
to  Novatian.  e)  De  bono  pudicitiae,  written  very  probably  by  the 
author  of  De  spectaculis,  is  a  spirited  elogium  of  chastity.  Matzinger 
failed  to  establish  the  authorship  of  Cyprian,  while  Weymann  and 
Demmler  argue  well  for  the  authorship  of  Novatian.  f)  Ad  Nova- 
tianum,  against  his  rigoristic  views;  internal  evidence  (c.  6)  shows 
that  it  was  written  shortly  after  the  persecution  of  Gallus  and  Volusian 
(251 — 253).  Harnack  maintains,  without  sufficient  proof,  that  it  is  from 
the  pen  of  Pope  Sixtus  II.  (257 — 258);  however,  there  is  not  sufficient 
evidence  to  show  even  that  it  was  written  in  .Rome,  g)  De  aleatoribiis, 
rather  Adversus  aleatores,  a  sermon  against  dice-playing  as  an  invention 
of  the  devil,  written  in  popular  unpolished  Latin  but  with  vigor  and 
boldness.  Harnack  believed  it  to  be  a  work  of  Pope  Victor  I.  (§  36,  i), 
and  therefore  «the  oldest  Christian  work  in  Latin ».  It  was  soon 
observed,  however,  that  the  author  knew  and  used  writings  of  Cyprian, 
especially  Ad  Quirinum.  In  the  introductory  phrases  (c.  i)  the  author 
does  not  call  himself  pope,  but  rather  only  a  bishop,  and  there  is  no 
positive  proof  that  he  occupied  an  Italian  see.  h)  De  rebaptismate  is 
a  polemical  work  in  favor  of  the  validity  of  heretical  baptism  and 
against  the  theory  and  practice  of  Cyprian.  The  author  was  a  bishop, 
gifted  with  a  taste  for  speculation ;  possibly  his  name  was  Ursinus 1. 
In  his  excellent  researches,  Ernst  has  shown  that  it  was  composed 
in  Africa,  very  probably  in  Mauritania,  and  in  256,  a  little  before 
the  Synod  of  September  I.  of  this  year.  Schiiler  also  agrees  that  it 
was  composed  in  that  year,  but  in  Italy,  he  thinks,  and  after  the 

1   Gennad,  De  viris  ill.,   c.   27. 


synod  just  mentioned.  Nelke  inclines  to  a  date  between  255  and  258; 
probably  the  earlier  figure,  i)  De  pascha  computus.  In  Hufmayr's 
opinion  it  was  written  in  the  fifth  year  of  Gordian,  before  the  Easter 
of  243  (c.  22),  for  the  purpose  of  correcting  the  sixteen-year  paschal 
cycle  of  Hippolytus  (§  54,  6),  by  a  cleric  resident  outside  of  Rome, 

a)  A.  Harnack,  Eine  bisher  nicht  erkannte  Schrift  Novatians  vom 
Jahre  249 — 250  (« Cyprian »,  De  laude  martyrii),  in  Texte  u.  Untersuchungen, 
Leipzig,  1895,  xiii.  4b;  cf.,  against  Harnack,  C.  Weyman,  in  Lit.  Rund 
schau  (1895),  pp.  331 — 333.  --  b)  G.  Landgraf,  Uber  den  pseudo-cypria- 
nischen  Traktat  «Adversus  Iudaeos»,  in  Archiv  fur  latein.  Lexikographie 
und  Grammatik  (1898),  xi.  87 — 97;  cf.  Harnack,  in  Texte  und  Unter 
suchungen,  xx,  new  series  (1900)  v.  3,  126 — 135.  -  -  c)  For  De  montibus 
Sina  et  Sion  see  Harnack,  ib.,  135 — 147.  —  d)  and  e)  Ed.  Wolff  tin,  Cyprianus 
de  spectaculis,  in  Archiv  fur  latein.  Lexikographie  und  Grammatik  (1892), 
vii.  i — 22.  S.  Matzinger,  Des  hi.  Thascius  Caecilius  Cyprianus  Traktat 
De  bono  pudicitiae  (Inaug.-Diss.),  Niirnberg,  1892.  Against  Wolff lin  and 
Matzinger  tf.  Weyman,  in  Histor.  Jahrb.  (1892),  xiii.  737 — 748;  (1893),  xiv. 
330  f. ,  and  A.  Dcmmler,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1894),  Ixxvi.  223 — 271. 
-  f)  A.  Harnack,  Eine  bisher  nicht  erkannte  Schrift  des  Papstes  Sixtus  IT. 
vom  Jahre  257/8,  in  Texte  und  Untersuchungen,  Leipzig,  1895,  xiii  i,  i 
to  70;  cf.  ib.,  xx,  new  series  (1900),  v  3,  116 — 126.  Against  Harnack 
see  Julichcr,  in  Theol.  Literaturzeitung  (1896),  pp.  19  —  22;  Funk,  in  Theol. 
Quartalschr.  (1896),  Ixxviii.  691 — 693;  Benson,  Cyprian,  London,  1897,  pp.  557 
to  564.  According  to  A.  Rombold ,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1900),  Ixxxii. 
546 — 60 1,  Ad Novatianum  was  written  by  Cyprian  in  255  or  256.  L.  Nelke 
maintains  (see  no.  5  of  this  §)  that  very  probably  Pope  Cornelius  was  its 
author  and  wrote  it  about  252.  •  g)  New  separate  editions  of  Adv. 
aleatores  were  published  by  A.  Miodonski ,  Erlangen  and  Leipzig,  1889 
(with  a  German  version),  and  by  A.  Hilgenfeld,  Freiburg,  1889.  A.  Harnack, 
Der  pseudo-cyprianische  Traktat  De  aleatoribus  etc.,  in  Texte  und  Unter 
suchungen,  Leipzig,  1888,  v.  i;  cf.  ib.,  xx,  new  series  (1900),  v  3,  112 
to  116.  Against  Harnack  see  Funk,  in  Histor.  Jahrb.  (1889),  x.  i — 22, 
and  Kirchengeschichtl.  Abhandlungen  und  Untersuchungen  (1899),  ii.  209 
to  236;  Haussleiter,  in  Theol.  Literaturblatt  (1889),  pp.  41 — 43,  49 — 51, 
and  in  Commentationes  Woelfflinianae,  Leipzig,  1891,  pp.  386 — 389;  Etude 
critique  sur  1'opuscule  «De  aleatoribus»  par  les  membres  du  seminaire 
d'histoire  ecclesiastique  etabli  a  1'Universite  Catholique  de  Louvain,  Louvain, 
1891,  with  appendix:  Une  lettre  perdue  de  Saint  Paul  et  le  «De  aleatori- 
bus»,  Louvain,  1893.  --  h)  For  De  rcbaptismate  see  J.  Ernst,  in  Zeitschr. 
fur  kathoL  Theol.  (1896),  xx.  193—255  360—362;  (1898),  xxii.  179—180; 
(1900),  xxiv.  425—462;  also  in  Histor.  Jahrb.  (1898),  xix.  499—522  737 
to  771.  Cf.  W.  Schiller,  in  Zeitschr.  fur  wissenschaftl.  Theol.  (1897),  xl. 
555  —  608;  A.  Beck,  in  «Katholik»  (1900),  i.  40—64.  Id.,  Kirchl.  Studien 
und  Quellen,  Hamburg,  1903,  pp.  i — 58,  makes  Sixtus  II.  author  of  De  re- 
bapttsmate,  but  doubts  somewhat  the  genuineness  of  cc.  16— 18.  —  i)  E.  Huf- 
mayr,  Die  pseudo-cyprianische  Schrift  «De  pascha  computus »  (Progr.),  Augs 
burg,  1896. 

Many  other  pseudo-cyprianic  works  were  written  after  the  time  of 
Constantine.  For  Ad  Vigilium  episcopum  de  iudaica  incredtditate  see  §  16. 
The  De  duodecim  abusivis  saeculi  (ed.  Hartel,  iii.  152 — 173)  still  awaits  an 
investigator  of  its  literary  history.  The  De  singularitate  clericorum  (Hartel,  iii. 
173—220)  is  identical  (according  to  Dom  Morin,  in  the  Revue  Benedictine 
[1891],  viii.  236  f.)  with  the  Ad  confessor es  et  virgines  of  the  priest  Macrobius, 

§    52.      ARNOBIUS.  2O I 

and  was  written  about  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century  (Gennad.,  De  vir.  ill., 
c.  5).  A.  Harnack,  Der  pseudocyprianische  Traktat  De  singularitate  cleri- 
corum,  ein  Werk  des  donatistischen  Bischofs  Macrobius  in  Rom,  in  Texte 
und  Untersuchungen ,  new  series,  Leipzig,  1903,  ix.  3,  accepts  and  con 
firms  the  thesis  of  Dom  Morin.  The  De  duplici  martyrio  ad  Fortunatum 
(Hartel,  iii.  220 — 247)  was  unmasked  by  Fr.  Lezius,  in  Neue  Jahrb.  fur  deutsche 
Theol.  (1895),  iv.  95 — no  184 — 243,  and  shown  to  be  a  daring  forgery  of 
its  first  editor,  Erasmus.  -  -  For  the  poems,  current  also  under  the  name 
of  Tertullian,  De  Genesi ,  De  Sodoma  and  De  lona ,  also  for  Ad  Flavium 
Felice 'm  de  resurrectione  mortuorum  cf.  §  50,  8 ;  for  the  poem  Ad  senator  em 
§88,  7;  for  De  pascha  §  87,  8.  The  Exhortatio  de  paenitentia ,  lacking 
in  Hartel's  edition,  and  recently  edited  by  A.  Miodoriski  (Cracow,  1893) 
is  a  collection  of  scriptural  texts  made  for  the  purpose  of  refuting  the 
rigorism  of  Novatian,  and  dates,  according  to  C.  Wunderer,  Bruchstiicke 
einer  afrikanischen  Bibeliibersetzung  in  der  pseudo-cyprianischen  Schrift 
«Exhort.  de  paenit.»  (Progr. ,  Erlangen,  1889),  from  about  the  year  400. 
For  other  apocryphal  works,  lacking  in  Hartel,  cf.  Harnack,  Gesch.  der 
altchristl.  Literatur,  i.  722  f.  The  Caena  Cypriani  (cf.  §  30,  5)  and  two  Ora- 
tione.s  {Hartel,  iii.  144 — 151)  are  located  by  Harnack  about  the  beginning 
of  the  fifth  century,  and  attributed  to  Cyprianus.  Gallus  (§  88,  2),  in  Texte 
und  Untersuchungen,  xix  new  series  (1899),  iy-  3^-  Michel,  Gebet  und  Bild, 
Leipzig,  1902,  pp.  77  ff.,  differs  from  Harnack.  —  On  all  the  works  in  the 
Appendix  to  Cyprian  cf.  P.  Monceaux,  Etudes  critiques  sur  1'appendice  de 
St.  Cyprien,  in  Revue  de  Philol.  (1902),  xxxvi.  63 — 98,  and  also  his  Cyprien 
in  i  of  this  §. 

§  52.    Arnobius. 

St.  Jerome  remarks1  that  his  name  suggests  a  Greek  origin.  He 
flourished  in  the  reign  of  Diocletian  (284 — 305)  at  Sicca  in  Africa 
Proconsulates,  where  he  was  known  as  a  distinguished  professor  of 
rhetoric.  By  a  dream  (somniis)  he  was  led  to  become  a  Christian. 
In  order  to  overcome  the  diffidence  of  the  bishop  to  whom  he  applied 
for  reception  into  the  Christian  community,  he  published  a  polemical 
work  against  heathenism  which  Jerome  calls 2  Adversus  gentes,  but  in 
the  only  (ninth-century)  manuscript  that  has  reached  us  is  entitled 
Adversus  nationes.  Internal  evidence  shows  that  it  was  composed 
during  the  persecution  of  Diocletian  (303 — 305)  or  shortly  afterwards 
(cf.  i.  13;  ii.  5;  iv.  36).  The  contents  of  the  work  fall  into  two 
parts :  the  first  two  books  are  mostly  taken  up  with  an  apology  for 
Christianity,  while  the  other  five  are  a  polemical  attack  on  heathenism. 
In  the  first  part  he  refutes  the  trite  accusation  that  the  Christians 
are  responsible  for  the  actual  evils  of  the  time  because  they  had 
roused  the  anger  of  the  gods.  The  religious  spirit  of  the  Christians 
is  guaranteed  by  their  faith  in  a  chief  and  supreme  God  (Deus  prin- 
ceps,  Deus  summus)  and  in  Christ  who  died  on  the  Cross  as  man, 
but  by  His  miracles  proved  Himself  to  be  God.  That  the  Christian 
religion  is  the  true  one  is  proved  by  its  rapid  spread,  by  its  influence 
on  the  manners  of  barbarian  peoples,  and  by  its  harmony  with  the 

1  Chron.  ad  a.  Abr.  2343  =  A.  D.   327.  -  De  viris  ill.,   c.   79. 


opinions  of  the  greatest  philosophers.  The  mention  of  Plato,  as  in 
many  things  a  herald  of  Christian  truth,  furnishes  the  occasion  for  a 
long  and  remarkable  excursus  on  the  soul  (ii.  14 — 62).  Passing  thence 
to  his  polemic  against  heathenism,  he  undertakes  to  show  that  the 
heathen  teaching  concerning  the  divinity  is  both  contradictory  and 
immoral  (iii — v).  In  the  sixth  book  he  describes  with  caustic 
severity  the  forms  of  heathen  worship,  the  temples  and  the  statues; 
in  the  seventh  book  he  treats  of  the  sacrificial  rites  and  ceremonies. 
(The  latter  book  seems  really  to  close  with  c.  37.  The  following 
chapters  38 — 51  are  apparently  sketches  for  some  new  work  against 
heathenism.)  The  work  of  Arnobius  did  not  meet  with  warm  ad 
miration  in  later  Christian  times.  The  declamatory  pathos  of  the  old 
rhetorician,  his  affected  and  involved  phraseology,  the  multiplicity  of 
interrogations,  become  at  length  very  wearisome  to  the  reader 1,  all  the 
more  so  as  in  Arnobius  warmth  of  conviction  and  clearness  of  thought 
are  not  prominent.  He  seems  to  have  hastily  put  together  his  apology 
for  Christianity  before  he  had  got  rid  of  remnants  of  heathenism. 
His  religious  opinions  offer  a  curious  mixture  of  Christian  and  heathen 
ideas :  Christ  is  not  equal  to  the  Dcus  summits.  In  the  supposition 
that  the  heathen  gods  really  exist,  they  must  be  gods  of  a  second 
order,  owing  their  existence  and  divine  character  to  the  God  of  the 
Christians,  to  whose  family  they  in  a  sense  belong  (i.  28;  iii.  2 — 3; 
vii.  35).  The  human  soul  is  not  the  work  of  God,  but  of  some  other 
celestial  being.  It  is  something  half  divine  and  half  material  (mediae 
qualitatis,  anceps  ambiguaque  natura),  in  itself  perishable,  but  capable 
by  the  grace  of  God  of  receiving  an  imperishable  character  (ii.  14  if.). 
He  draws  from  the  didactic  poem  of  Lucretius  (De  rerum  natura) 
his  arguments  against  an  absolute  eternity,  and  from  the  Platonists 
and  Neoplatonists  his  arguments  against  the  annihilation  of  the  soul. 
The  second  part  of  the  work,  especially  books  iii — v,  has  always  at 
tracted  the  attention  of  philologists  because  of  its  very  copious  mytho 
logical  information.  He  appears  to  have  studied  the  Roman  mythology 
in  the  (lost)  works  of  the  Neoplatonist  Cornelius  Labeo,  and  Greek 
mythology  in  the  Protrepticus  of  Clement  of  Alexandria  (§  38,  3). 

The  text  of  Arnobius  is  based  exclusively  on  Cod.  Paris.  1661,  of  the 
ninth  century;  cf.  §  24,  i.  The  Editio  princeps  is  that  of  F.  Sabaeus, 
Rome,  1543.  For  later  editions  cf.  Schoemmann ,  Bibliotheca  historico- 
literaria  Patrum  Latinorum,  i.  160—175.  NCW  editions  or  reprints  were 
brought  out  by  J.  C.  Orelli ,  3  vols. ,  Leipzig,  1816—1817;  Migne ,  PL., 
Paris,  1844,  v;  G.  F.  Hildebrand,  Halle,  1844;  Fr.  Oehkr,  Leipzig,  1846 
(Gersdorf,  Bibl.Patr.  eccles.  Lat.  sel.,  xii).  The  best  is  that  of  A.  Reifferscheid, 
Vienna,  1875  (Corpus  script,  eccl.  Lat.,  iv).  Cf.  Id.,  in  Indices  scholarum 
Vratislav.  1877—1878,  pp.  9—10;  1879  —  1880,  pp.  8— 10.  M.  Bastgen, 
Quaestiones  de  locis  ex  Arnobii  Adv.  nat.  opere  selectis  (Dissert,  inaug.), 
Miinster,  1887.  "~  German  versions  of  Arnobius  were  made  by  Fr.  A. 

1  Hicr.,  Ep.   58,   10. 

§    53-      LACTANTIUS.  2O3 

v.  Besnard,  Landshut,  1842;  J.  Alleker,  Trier,  1858.  --  E.  Freppel,  Com- 
modien,  Arnobe,  Lactance,  Paris,  1893,  pp.  28  —  93.  On  the  diction  of 
Arnobius  see  C.  Stange,  De  Arnobii  oratione  (Progr.),  Saargemiind,,  1893; 
J.  Scharnagl,  De  Arnobii  maioris  latinitate  (2  Progr.),  Gorz,  1894 — 1895, 
i — ii;  P.  Spindler,  De  Arnobii  genere  dicendi  (Dissert. },  Strassburg,  1901. 
-  For  the  «sources»  of  Arnobius  see  G.  Kettner,  Cornelius  Labeo  (Progr.), 
Naumburg,  1877  ;  A.  Rohricht ,  De  Clemente  Alex.  Arnobii  in  irridendo 
gentilium  cultu  deorum  auctore  (Progr.),  Hamburg,  1893.  F.  Dal  Pane, 
Sopra  la  fonte  di  un  passo  (v.  18)  di  Arnobio,  in  Studi  Italiani  di  Filo- 
logia  Classica  (1901),  ix.  30.  --  For  the  doctrine  of  Arnobius  see  K.  B. 
Francke,  Die  Psychologic  und  Erkenntnislehre  des  Arnobius  (Inaug.-Diss.), 
Leipzig,  1878;  A.  Rohricht,  Die  Seelenlehre  des  Arnobius,  Hamburg,  1893; 
E.  F.  Schulze,  Das  Ubel  in  der  Welt  nach  der  Lehre  des  Arnobius  (Inaug.- 
Diss.),  Jena,  1896;  E.  Vorontzow ,  Apologet  Arnobii  Afrikanei  (Russian), 
Kharkon  (1904),  ii.  319—338. 

§  53.     Lactantius. 

1.  HIS  LIFE.  -•-  Lucius  Caelius  Firmianus  Lactantius,  for  such  was 
probably  his  full  name,  was,  according  to  St.  Jerome *,  a  disciple  of 
Arnobius,    and    unquestionably    a    native    of   Africa,    though    local 
Italian  patriotism,  without  any  evidence,   claims  the  honor  of  his  birth 
for  Firmum  (Fermo),  in  the  territory  of  Picenum.     His  parents  were 
heathens,  and  the  date  of  his  conversion  to  Christianity  is  unknown. 
It  is  probable  that  he  had  already  won  fame  in  Africa  as  a  rhetorician 
when  Diocletian  made  him  professor  of  Latin  rhetoric  at  Nicomedia, 
the  new  capital  of  the  empire.     The  persecution  of  Diocletian  com 
pelled  him  to  quit  this  office;    his  subsequent  life  was  probably  one 
of  much  privation.     At  an  advanced  age  he  appears  in  Gaul  as  the 
tutor  of  Crispus,  the  son  of  Constantine.    The  time  and  place  of  his 
death  are  unknown. 

S.  Brandt,  Uber  die  dualistischen  Zusatze  und  die  Kaiseranreden  bei 
Lactantius.  Nebst  einer  Untersuchung  liber  das  Leben  des  Lactantius  und 
die  Entstehungsverhaltnisse  seiner  Prosaschriften  (four  Essays),  in  Sitzungs- 
berichte  der  phil.-histor.  Klasse  der  kgl.  Akad.  der  Wissensch. ,  Vienna, 
1889—1891,  cxviii — cxxv;  cf.  T.  E.  Mecchi ,  Lattanzio  e  la  sua  patria, 
Fermo,  1875.  P.  Meyer,  Quaestionum  Lactahtiarum  partic.  i.  (Progr.), 
Jiilich,  1878.  R.  Pichon,  Lactance.  Etude  sur  le  mouvement  philosophique 
et  religieux  sous  le  regne  de  Constantin,  Paris,  1901. 

2.  HIS  LITERARY  LABORS.  —  Lactantius,  like  his  master  Arnobius, 
wras  more  skilful  in  his  onslaught  upon  heathenism  than  in  his  defence 
of  Christianity.    Utinam,  says  Jerome  2,  tarn  nostra  affinnare  potuisset 
quam  facile  aliena  destruxit!     Withal,    he  accomplished   more  than 
Arnobius.     He   is   more   comprehensive  and  versatile   in    his   literary 
work,  while  his  style  is  more  chaste,  natural  and  pleasing  than  that 
of  any  of  his  contemporaries,  vir  omnium  suo  tempore  eloquentissimus, 
quasi  quidam  fluvius  eloquenliae   Tullianac^.     The  humanists  called 

1  De  viris  ill.,   c.   80;   Chron.  ad  a.   Abr.   2333.  2  Ep.   58,    10. 

3  Hicr.,   Chron,  ad  a.   Abr.   2333;   Ep.    58,    10. 


him  the  Christian  Cicero,  and  in  general  exhibited  an  exaggerated 
admiration  for  his  writings.  As  early  as  the  fifteenth  century  his 
writings,  extant  in  numerous  and  ancient  codices,  went  through  a 
long  series  of  editions.  The  real  strength  of  Lactantius  is  in  his 
formal  grace  and  elegance  of  expression;  like  his  heathen  model  he 
lacks  solidity  and  depth.  He  had  read  extensively,  and  retained  and 
assimilated  with  great  ease  the  learning  of  others,  which  he  reproduced 
in  correct  and  polished  phraseology.  If  we  except  St.  Jerome,  and 
perhaps  St.  Augustine,  no  Christian  writer  of  antiquity  was  so  deeply 
versed  in  Latin  and  Greek  literature;  but  conversely  his  knowledge  of 
ecclesiastical  literature,  and  still  more  so  of  the  Scripture,  was  equally 
meagre  and  imperfect.  St.  Jerome  accuses  him  of  downright  imperitia 
scripturarum,  for  failing  to  recognize  a  third  person  in  the  Divinity, 
or  the  personal  distinction  between  the  Holy  Spirit  and  the  Father 
and  the  Son 1.  He  leaned  towards  Chiliasm  2,  and  his  entire  doctrinal 
and  ethical  teaching  is  suffused  with  a  peculiar  dualism,  best  formu 
lated  in  his  thesis  that  evil  is  of  necessity  presupposed  to  good3. 

The  manuscript-tradition  of  the  works  of  Lactantius  is  the  subject  of 
an  exhaustive  study  by  Brandt  in  the  prolegomena  of  his  edition.  The 
oldest  manuscripts  are  a  Cod.  Bononiensis  of  the  sixth  or  seventh  cen 
tury  (Div.  inst.,  De  ira  Dei,  DC  opif.  Dei,  Epitome  div.  inst.)  and  a 
Cod.  Sangallensis  rescriptus  of  the  sixth  or  seventh  century  (Div.  inst.). 
The  editio  princeps  appeared  at  Subiaco  in  1465,  it  is  the  first  dated 
book  printed  in  Italy.  During  the  eighteenth  century  appeared  the  com 
plete  editions  of  Chr.  A.  Neumann,  Gottingen,  1736;  J.  L.  Buenemann, 
Leipzig,  1739-  J-  B-  Le  Brun  and  N.  Lenglet  du  Fresnoy,  2  vols.,  Paris, 
1748;  F.  Eduardus  a  S.  Xaverio,  u  vols.,  Rome,  1754 — 1759.  The  edition 
of  Le  Brun  and  du  Fresnoy  is  reprinted  in  Migne ,  PL. ,  Paris ,  1 844 ,  vi 
to  vii).  Brandt  was  the  first  to  make  a  comprehensive  and  critical  use 
of  the  extant  manuscripts :  L.  C.  F.  Lactanti  opera  omnia,  rec.  S.  Brandt 
et  G.  Laubmann,  2  vols.,  Vienna,  1890—1897  (Corpus  script,  eccles.  Lat. 
xix  xxvii).  -  P.  Bertold,  Prolegomena  zu  Lactantius  (Progr.),  Metten, 
1 86 1.  Freppel,  Commodien,  Arnobe,  Lactance,  Paris,  1893,  pp.  94 — 148. 
-  H.  Limberg,  Quo  iure  Lactantius  appellatur  Cicero  christianus  r  (Dissert. 
inaug.),  Minister,  1896.  H.  Glacscncr,  Several  grammatical  and  philological 
articles,  in  Musee  Beige  (1901),  v.  5—27.  S.  Brandt,  Lactantius  und  Lu 
cretius,  in  Neue  Jahrb.  fur  Philol.  und  Padag.  (1891),  cxliii.  225—259. 
P.  G.  Frotscher,  Des  Apologeten  Lactantius  Verhaltnis  zur  griechischen 
Philosophic  (Inaug.-Diss.),  Leipzig,  1895.  --  E.  Overlach ,  Die  Theologie 
des  Lactantius  (Progr.),  Schwerin,  1858.  M.  E.  Heinig,  Die  Ethik  des  Lac 
tantius  (Inaug.-Diss.),  Grimma,  1887.  Fr.  Marbach,  Die  Psychologic  des 
Firmianus  Lactantius  (Inaug.-Diss.),  Halle,  1889. 

3.  DIVINAE  INSTITUTIONES.  -  His  most  important  work  is  a 
series  of  religious  instructions  in  seven  books ,  Divinarum  institutio- 
num  libri  VII,  at  once  an  apology  and  a  manual  of  theology.  The 
purpose  of  the  author  is  first  to  put  to  silence  all  the  opponents 

1  Comm.   in  Gal.   ad  iv.   6;   Ep.   84,    7.  *  Div.    inst.,  vii.    14  ff. 

3  Cf.  De  ira  Dei,   c.    15. 

§    53-      LACTANTIUS.  2O5 

of  the  Christian  faith.  Proceeding  then  from  the  negative  to  the  af 
firmative,  he  undertakes  to  describe  «the  whole  contents  of  the  Chris 
tian  doctrine»  (v.  4).  The  title  itself  is  instructive;  he  borrowed 
it  from  the  current  manuals  of  legal  science1.  The  first  two  books, 
De  falsa  religione  and  De  origine  err  or  is ,  are  devoted  to  the 
refutation  of  the  superstitions  of  polytheism  and  to  the  demonstra 
tion  of  monotheism  as  the  only  true  religion.  The  third  book, 
De  falsa  sapientia,  attacks  the  philosophy  of  the  heathen,  as  being, 
next  to  their  false  religion,  the  source  of  their  errors.  From  the 
mutually  destructive  systems  of  philosophy  one  turns  with  satisfaction 
to  God's  revelation  of  Himself,  which  concept  furnishes  the  transit 
to  the  fourth  book,  De  vera  sapientia  et  religione.  True  wisdom 
consists  in  the  knowledge  and  worship  of  God ;  these  have  been 
given  to  mankind  through  Christ,  the  Son  of  God.  The  fifth  book, 
De  iustitia ,  treats  of  that  justice  to  which  men  return  through 
Christ.  Its  basis  is  that  piety  (pietas)  which  is  rooted  in  the  know 
ledge  of  God ,  and  its  essence  is  that  equity  (aequitas)  which  sees 
in  all  men  children  of  God.  The  sixth  book,  De  vero  cultu,  goes 
to  show  that  in  the  exercise  of  this  justice  lies  the  true  worship  of 
God.  Hereupon  he  explains  the  two  essential  qualities  of  all  justice, 
religio  and  misericordia  vel  humanitas.  In  the  seventh  book,  finally, 
he  crowns  his  work  with  a  description  of  heaven  (De  vita  beata), 
the  reward  of  all  true  worship  of  God.  Lactantius  is  the  first  among 
the  Western  Christians  to  exhibit  in  a  connected  system  the  Chris 
tian  views  of  life  and  man.  He  knows  and  uses  the  works  of 
earlier  apologists  such  as  Minucius  Felix,  Tertullian,  Cyprian  and 
Theophilus  of  Antioch.  He  quotes  the  Scripture  occasionally  from 
St.  Cyprian's  so-called  Testimonia  adversus  ludaeos ,  but  abounds 
still  more  in  quotations  from  classic  authors.  This  work  was  written 
during  the  persecution  of  Diocletian  and  Galerius  (305 — 310)  in  part 
at  Nicomedia  and  in  part  elsewhere  (v.  2,  2;  u,  15).  The  so-called 
dualistic  phrases  found  in  some  manuscripts,  to  the  effect  that  God 
willed  and  created  evil  (ii.  8,  6;  vii.  5,  27) 2  are  interpolations,  but 
according  to  Brandt  inserted  as  early  as  the  fourth  century.  Brandt 
attributes  to  this  interpolator  certain  more  or  less  lengthy  discourses 
to  Constantine,  that  are  found  in  the  same  manuscripts  (i.  I,  12;  vii. 
27,  2  etc.);  others  hold  them  to  be  genuine  elements  of  a  second 
edition  of  the  work. 

Brandt ,  Uber  die  dualistischen  Zusiitze  und  die  Kaiseranreden  (see 
§  53,  i).  In  favor  of  the  genuineness  of  the  dualistic  additions  see  J.  G.  Th. 
Miillcr,  Quaestiones  Lactantianae  (Dissert,  inaug.),  Gottingen,  1875,  and  of 
the  discourses  to  Constantine  J.  Reiser,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr.  (i8gS),  Ixxx. 
548 — 588.  —  For  the  Scriptural  quotations  see  the  edition  of  Brandt,  \.  c. 
(1890),  i.  xcvn  ff.  The  date  of  composition  is  discussed  by  Lobmullcr, 
in  «Katholik»  (1898),  ii.  i  —  23. 

1  Institutiones  civilis  iuris,   i.    i,    12.  "  Cf.   De  opificio  Dei,  c.   19,   8. 


4.  EPITOME   DIV.    INST.      DE   OPIFICIO   DEI.      DE   IRA   DEI.    —     At 
the   request   of  a  certain  Pentadius,    whom  he  addresses  as  Pentadi 

f rater,  Lactantius  prepared ,  about  315,  a  summary  of  his  large 
work  and  entitled  it  Epitome  divinarum  institutionum.  It  is  really 
a  new,  but  abbreviated  recension  of  the  work.  The  suspicions  oc 
casionally  manifested  concerning  its  genuineness  are  nowise  justified. 
In  the  treatise  De  opificio  Dei,  addressed  to  Demetrianus,  a  former 
disciple,  and  written  before  the  Institutiones  (about  304 ;  cf.  c.  6,  15; 
15,  6;  20),  Lactantius  maintains  against  the  Epicureans,  that  the 
human  organism  is  a  « creation  of  God»,  a  work  of  Providence. 
After  an  anatomical  and  physiological  description  of  the  human  body 
and  a  teleological  commentary  on  its  constitution  (cc.  5 — 13),  he  dis 
cusses  in  the  second  part  some  psychological  questions  (cc.  16 — 19); 
the  dualistic  addition  in  c.  19,  8  are  discussed  above  (§  53,  3). 
Brandt  is  of  opinion  that  Lactantius  composed  the  first  part  of  this 
work  on  the  basis  of  some  Hermetic  book.  The  treatise  De  ira 
Dei,  addressed  to  a  certain  Donatus,  and  written  after  the  Institu 
tiones  (c.  2,  4  6;  n,  2)1  is  directed  against  the  Epicurean  doctrine 
of  the  absolute  indifference  (apathia)  of  the  divinity;  from  the  very 
nature  of  religion  Lactantius  deduces  the  necessity  of  a  divine  wrath. 

The  Epitome  was  translated  into  German  by  P.  H.  Janscn,  Kempten, 
1875  (Bibl-  der  Kirchenvater) ;  the  De  ira  Dei  by  R.  Storf ,  ib.;  the  De 
opificio  Dei  by  A.  Knappitsch ,  Graz,  1898.  For  the  sources  of  the  De 
opif.  Dei  cf.  Brandt,  Wiener  Studien  (1891),  xiii.  255  —  292. 

5.  DE  MORTIBUS  PERSECUTORUM.  --In  this  work  are  narrated  the 
wretched  deaths  of  the  imperial  persecutors  of  the  Christians ;  indeed, 
its   purpose   is   to   show   that   the    God    of  the   Christians   has   truly 
manifested  his  power  and  greatness  against  the  enemies  of  His  name 
(c.  i,  7).    In  the  introduction  it  treats  briefly  of  Nero,  Domitian,  Decius, 
Valerian,   and  Aurelian.     The  closing  days  of  Diocletian,  Maximian, 
Galerius,   Severus  and  Maximinus  are  described  with  greater  fulness. 
The  narrator  writes  from  personal  experience ;  in  the  years  3 1 1   and 
313  he  was  resident   in  Nicomedia  (cc.   35   48;    cf.   c.    i),    where  the 
book   was   probably   written    in  314.     The    entire    story  breathes   an 
atmosphere  of  vivid  personal  impressions  received  during  those  days 
of  horror;    it   has   not   yet   been    proved    that    the  narrator  has  any 
where  consciously  perverted  the  truth  of  history.    Only  one  (eleventh 
century)    manuscript   of  the   work    has    reached    us.     It    is    entitled: 
Lucn    Caecihi    liber  ad  Donatum   confessoretn    de   mort.  persec.     In 
many  manuscripts  Lactantius  is  called  Lucius  Caelius  or  Lucius  Cae- 
cilius,    and  we    have    seen   already  that  he  dedicated  his  treatise  De 
ira  Dei   to    a    certain  Donatus.     According    to   Jerome2,    Lactantius 
left  a  work  De  persecution  which  universal  consent  identifies  with  the 

1  Cf.  Div.  inst.,  ii.  17,  5.  2  De  viris  ilLj  c   go 

§    53-      LACTANTIUS.  2O/ 

De  mortibus  persecutorum.  Finally  there  is  a  minute  correspondence 
of  style  and  diction  between  this  work  and  the  other  writings  of 
Lactantius.  Its  fundamental  concept  appears  also  in  the  Institutiones 
(v.  23).  Even  the  peculiar  features  of  the  work,  its  irritated  senti 
ment  and  impassioned  tone  are  easily  understood  from  the  nature  of 
the  subject-matter.  The  most  recent  editor,  Brandt,  stands  almost 
alone  in  maintaining  that  Lactantius  is  not  the  author  of  the  De 
mortibus  persecutorum.  There  is  no  solid  basis,  however,  for  his 
hypothesis  that  Lactantius  spent  the  time  from  311  to  313  in  Gaul. 

This  work  was  first  edited  by  Stephen  Baluze,  Paris,  1679 ;  f°r  new  separate 
editions  we  are  indebted  to  Fr.  Dilbner,  Paris,  1863,  1879;  Brandt,  Vienna, 
1897.  It  is  reprinted  in  Hurtcr,  SS.  Patr.  opusc.  sel. ,  Innsbruck,  1873, 
xxii.  It  was  translated  into  German  by  P.  H.  Jansen ,  Kempten,  1875 
(Bibl.  der  Kirchenvater).  The  question  of  authorship  is  discussed  by  Ad. 
Ebert,  in  Berichte  iiber  die  Verhandlungen  der  kgl.  sachs.  Gesellsch.  der 
Wissensch. ,  Leipzig,  1870,  xxii.  115 — 138  (for  Lactantius);  Brandt,  Uber 
die  Entstehungsverhaltnisse  der  Prosaschriften  des  Lactantius  (see  §  53,  i) 
pp.  22 — 122  and  in  Neue  Jahrb.  fiir  Philol.  und  Padag.  (1893),  cxlvii. 
121 — 138  203 — 223  (against  Lactantius);  J.  Belser,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr. 
(1892),  Ixxiv.  246 — 293  439 — 464;  (1898),  Ixxx.  547 — 596  (for  Lactantius); 
O.  Seeck,  Gesch.  des  Untergangs  der  antiken  Welt,  Berlin,  1895,  i.  426 — 430 
(for  Lactantius).  --  J.  Rothfuchs,  Qua  historiae  fide  Lactantius  usus  sit  in 
libroDe  mort.  persec.  (Progr.),  Marburg,  1862.  Belser,  Grammatisch-kritische 
Erkliirung  von  Lactantius'  «De  mort.  persec. »  c.  34  (Progr.),  Ellwangen, 
1889.  For  minor  articles  of  A.  Crivellucci ,  A.  Mantini  and  Brandt  see 
Studi  Storici  (1893),  ii.  45— 48  374— 388  444—464;  (1894),  iii.  65  —  70; 
(1896),  v.  555 — 571.  y.  Kopp,  Uber  den  Verfasser  des  Buches  «De  morti 
bus  persecutorum »  (Dissert.),  Munich,  1902  (for  Lactantius). 

6.  DE  AVE  PHOENICE.  SPURIOUS  POEMS.  -  -  The  poem  De  av'e 
Phoenice  relates  in  eighty-five  distichs  the  myth  of  the  miraculous 
bird  that  dwelt  in  the  sacred  grove  of  the  Sun- God  as  his  priest, 
whence  every  thousand  years  it  came  on  earth  to  mount  its  own 
funeral  pyre,  and  from  its  own  ashes  rose  to  a  new  life.  There  is 
a  long  series  of  witnesses,  beginning  with  Gregory  of  Tours 1,  for  the 
authorship  of  Lactantius ;  most  modern  critics  admit  it,  even  Brandt, 
though  he  ascribes  it  not  to  the  Christian  but  to  the  heathen  period 
of  his  life.  Nevertheless,  the  work  has  a  specific  Christian  color, 
and  both  in  matter  and  style  exhibits  many  Christian  peculiarities. 
The  Phoenix  was  looked  on  as  a  symbol  of  the  resurrection.  The 
poem  De  resurrectione  (De  pascha)  is  not  a  work  of  Lactantius, 
but  rather  of  Venantius  Fortunatus 2.  The  poem  De  passione  Domini 
belongs  to  the  end  of  the  fifteenth  century. 

De  are  Phoenice  in  Brandt's  edition  (1893),  ii.  i,  135 — 147;  cf.  xviii 
to  xxii.  On  the  origin  of  the  myth  see  H.  Dechent ,  in  Rhein.  Mus.  fiir 
Philol.,  new  series  (1880),  xxxv.  39 — 55;  R.  Loebe,  in  Jahrb.  fiir  protest. 
Theol.  (1892),  xviii.  34 — 65;  Brandt,  in  Rhein.  Mus.  fiir  Philol.,  new  series 

1  De  cursu  stellarum,   c.    12.  ~   Cann.,  iii.   9. 


(1892),  xlvii.  390 — 403;  A.  Knappitsch,  De  L.  C.  F.  Lactanti  «ave  Phoe- 
nice»  (Progr.),  Graz,  1896  (with  a  German  metrical  version).  The  De 
passione  Domini  is  in  Brandt,  1.  c.;  pp.  148 — 151;  cf.  xxii — xxxiii.  C,  Pas 
cal,  Sul  carme  «De  ave  Phoenice»  attribute  a  Lattanzio,  Napole,  1904. 
For  a  collection  of  metrical  enigmas  see  below  §  53,  7  a. 

7.  LOST  WRITINGS.  FRAGMENTS.  -  -  Lactantius  intended  to  pu 
blish  a  work  against  all  heresies1,  and  another  against  the  Jews2, 
but  he  seems  not  to  have  carried  out  his  purpose.  Several  other  works 
have  perished :  a)  Symposium  quod  adolescentulus  scripsit  Africae  *, 
perhaps  a  discussion  of  grammatical  or  rhetorical  questions  in  the 
form  of  a  banquet-dialogue.  The  title  of  Symposium  may  have  been 
the  occasion  for  attributing  to  him  one  hundred  metrical  enigmas, 
each  in  three  hexameters,  that  are  otherwise  adjudged  to  a  certain 
Symphosius;  b)  Hodoeporicum  (bdotxopixov)  Africa  usque  Nicomediam 
hexametris  scriptum  versibus^\  c)  Grammaticus^ ;  d)  Ad  Asclepiadem 
libri  duoQ;  the  recipient  is  probably  identical  with  the  homonymous 
author  of  a  work  addressed  to  Lactantius ,  De  providentia  summi 
Dei1 ;  e)  Ad  Probum  epistolarum  libri  quattuor^.  This  is  perhaps 
the  collection  of  letters  to  which  pope  Damasus  refers  when  he  tells 
us9  that  Lactantius  wrote  letters  in  which  he  dealt  mostly  with 
metre,  geography  and  philosophy,  but  rarely  touched  on  matters  of 
Christian  theology;  f)  Ad  Severum  epistolariim  libri  duo^  ;  g)  Ad 
Demetrianum  (§  53,  4)  auditor  em  suum  epistolarum  libri  duo^.  The 
letters  treated  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  of  other  subjects  (cf.  §  53,  2). 
h)  In  a  codex  of  the  eighth  or  ninth  century  there  is  a  fragment  on 
divers  passions  —  hope,  fear,  love,  hatred  etc.  -  -  with  the  marginal 
note  Lactantius  de  motibus  animi.  It  may  be  genuine,  but  cannot 
be  definitely  assigned  to  any  of  his  writings. 

The  collection  of  metrical  enigmas  is  in  Migne ,  PL.,  vii.  289—298. 
It  is  not  in  the  edition  of  Brandt;  cf.  Teuffel-Schwabe ,  Gesch.  der  rom. 
Literatur,  5.  ed. ,  pp.  1152  f.  For  the  other  works  mentioned  see  the 
quotations  and  fragments  in  Brandt,  1.  c.  (1893),  ii.  i,  155  —  160,  with  the 
pertinent  literature. 

§  54.     Hippolytus. 

i.  His  LIFE.     -  The  authorship  of  the  «Refutation  of  all  Heresies», 

xara  xaocov  alpiazcov  I'/^/oc,  or  Philosophumena  (see  §  54,  3),  a  large 

and  important  work  discovered  in   1851,   awakened  much  interest  at 

Since  then  the  authorship  of  the  work  has  been  extensively, 

but  so  far  inconclusively,  discussed.     The  first  of  its  ten  books  was 

'  Div.  inst,  iv.  30,    14;  De  ira  Dei.   c.   2,  6.  »  Div    inst ^  vii>         26 

De  viris  ill.,  c.   So.  *  Ib.  5  Ib  6  Ib 

*  Div.  inst,  vii.  4,    17.  s  Hier>  L  c  ^  ' 

10  Hier.,  De  viris  ill.,   c.   80 ;  cf.   c.    in.  n  Ib. 

§    54-      HIPPOLYTUS.  2O9 

long  current  under  the  name  of  Origen.  That  it  could  not  be  'from 
his  pen  was  wellk-nown  from  the  title  of  bishop  (dpytepareia)  which 
the  author  gives  himself  in  the  preface,  that  being  an  office  that 
Origen  never  filled.  In  1842  Mynoides  Mynas  brought  to  Paris  from 
Mount  Athos  a  fourteenth-century  manuscript  containing  books  iv — x 
of  the  work.  They  were  edited  by  E.  Miller  in  1851,  curiously  enough 
as  a  work  of  Origen.  The  second  and  third  books  are  still  lacking. 
The  authorship  of  Origen  was  at  once  rejected  on  all  sides  and  five 
other  possible  authors  suggested.  These  were  Hippolytus,  Beron, 
Cajus,  Novatian  and  Tertullian.  The  preponderance  of  opinion  was  in 
favor  of  Hippolytus,  for  whom  Dollinger  (1853)  and  Volkmar  (1855) 
pleaded  with  special  success.  It  was  easy  to  show  that  Beron, 
against  whom  Hippolytus  was  said  to  have  written  (xara  Bypawoq), 
belonged  at  the  earliest  to  the  fourth  century,  nor  could  the  claims 
of  the  Anti-Montanist  Cajus  be  maintained  in  face  of  the  critical  argu 
ments  opposed  to  it.  In  the  course  of  the  controversy  the  names 
of  Novatian  and  Tertullian  were  gradually  abandoned.  In  a  general 
way  the  name  of  Hippolytus  stands  for  the  Philosophumena,  as  often 
as  it  becomes  necessary  to  refer  to  some  definite  person  as  author 
of  the  work.  It  is  true  that  this  work  is  not  mentioned  in  the  ancient 
catalogue  of  the  writings  of  Hippolytus  (§  54,  2.  But  other  writings 
claimed  as  his  by  the  author  in  the  preface  to  the  Philosophumena, 
e.  g.  the  so-called  Syntagma  (Philos.  prooem.),  the  Chronicon  (x.  30),  and 
the  work  on  the  nature  of  the  Universe  (x.  32),  are  otherwise  known  to 
be  works  of  Hippolytus.  There  is  also  a  striking  similarity  between  the 
Philosophumena  and  other  acknowledged  writings  of  Hippolytus,  e.  g. 
the  work  against  Noetus,  and  DC  Antichristo.  Finally,  the  meagre 
and  contradictory  information  concerning  Hippolytus  that  antiquity 
has  bequeathed  us  is  placed  in  an  entirely  new  light  by  the  details 
furnished  in  the  Philosophumena  concerning  the  life  and  times  of  its 
author.  Not  only  are  the  known  facts  of  Hippolytus's  life  notably 
increased,  but  the  former  accounts  of  him  are  rendered  now  for  the 
first  time  intelligible.  In  Western  tradition  Hippolytus  had  become  the 
centre  of  a  legendary  cycle,  through  the  mazes  of  which  it  was  difficult 
to  reach  the  kernel  of  historical  truth.  The  Philosophumena  put  an 
end  to  the  almost  unexampled  confusion  that  hitherto  had  surrounded 
his  person.  -  -  The  Oriental  tradition  was  right,  according  to  this 
work,  in  maintaining  that  Hippolytus,  a  disciple  of  St.  Irenaeus1, 
had  really  been  a  bishop  of  Rome.  He  was  the  rival  of  Pope  Cal- 
lixtus  (217 — 222),  the  head  of  a  schismatical  party,  and  therefore 
one  of  the  first  anti-popes  known  to  history.  It  is  true  that  our 
only  account  of  this  situation  comes  from  the  Philosophumena  itself 
(ix.  7  ii  12),  but  we  cannot  therefore  accuse  its  author  of  a  de- 

1  Phot.,  Bibl.   Cod.    121. 
BARDENHEWER-SHAHAN,  Patrology.  14 


liberate  intention  to  calumniate  his  adversary.  Nevertheless,  we  must 
carefully  distinguish  between  the  facts  which  are  related  and  the  coloring 
that  the  narrative  puts  upon  them.  Callixtus  appears  in  ecclesiastical 
history  as  one  of  the  most  worthy  among  the  popes.  His  adversary 
was  a  subordinationist  in  doctrine,  and  in  church  discipline  he  held 
a  sectarian  rigorism.  Callixtus  had  softened  the  severe  penitential  dis 
cipline  by  permitting  those  guilty  of  adultery  or  of  fornication  to  be 
again  received  into  ecclesiastical  communion,  after  performance  of 
the  penance  enjoined1.  In  other  matters  also  he  had  shown  himself 
disposed  to  gentler  measures,  e.  g.  with  regard  to  the  reconciliation 
of  those  who  returned  from  heresy  or  schism,  the  treatment  of  un 
worthy  bishops,  the  advancement  of  bigamists  to  the  higher  ec 
clesiastical  offices,  and  the  like.  To  Hippolytus  all  this  savoured  of 
unprincipled  levity  (Philos.  ix.  12),  though  he  does  not  undertake  to 
justify  his  passionate  denunciation  of  it.  In  so  far  as  his  views  are 
not  the  result  of  personal  opposition  to  Callixtus,  they  can  only 
represent  an  erroneous  concept  of  the  nature  and  scope  of  ecclesiastical 
authority,  and  a  lack  of  sympathetic  intelligence  for  the  needs  of 
the  time.  He  describes  himself  frequently  as  the  most  decided  ad 
versary  of  the  Patripassian  doctrine,  of  the  Novatians,  and  of  Sa- 
bellius.  But  his  own  theology  aroused  criticism,  and  was  declared  by 
Callixtus  a  pure  ditheism  (Philos.  ix.  12).  According  to  Hippolytus  the 
Logos  existed  first  impersonally  in  the  Father,  undistinguished  from 
Him  in  substance;  he  was  the  unspoken  word  of  the  Father,  kofOQ 
TOQ;  later,  when  the  Father  willed  it,  and  as  He  willed  it, 
tyffev,  xa&coc;  -/jttltyffsy2,  the  Word  came  forth  from  the  Father, 
zpcxpopixoc, ,  as  another  than  He,  zrzpoQ.  Only  in  the  Incar 
nation  did  He  become  the  true  and  perfect  Son  of  the  Father.  The 
alleged  relation  between  the  Father  and  the  Son  is  therefore  strictly 
subordinationist  in  character.  Hippolytus  does  not  hesitate  even  to  say 
(Philos.  x.  33)  that  God,  had  He  so  willed,  might  have  made  God 
also  any  man  (or  the  man),  instead  of  the  Logos  (el  yap  $zov  ae 
jj&etyae  xotyaat,  iduvaro-  s/stQ  TO~J  M^oo  TO  TTapddeirfjtaj.  The  reproach 
of  ditheism  is  therefore  in  so  far  true  that  Hippolytus  recognized  a 
distinction  of  substance  between  the  Father  and  the  Logos;  the 
latter  was  only  genetically  God.  But  when  Hippolytus  says  of  Callixtus 
(Philos.  ix.  12)  that  «he  falls  sometimes  into  the  error  of  Sahellius 
and  sometimes  into  that  of  Theodotus»,  he  can  only  mean  that  on 
the  one  hand  Callixtus  maintained  the  equality  and  unity  of  nature 
in  the  Father  and  the  Son,  without  denying,  as  did  Sabellius,  the 
distinction  of  persons;  and  on  the  other  maintained  the  perfect  hu 
manity  of  the  Redeemer,  without  denying  His  divinity,  as  did  Theo- 
dotus.  The  schism  of  Hippolytus  did  not  spread ;  even  in  Rome 

Tert.,  De  pudicit.,  c.   I.  2  c    i$oet.,  c.    10. 

§    54-      HIPPOLYTUS.  211 

his  faction  seems  to  have  been  short-lived.  There  are  many  reasons 
for  supposing  that  Hippolytus  himself,  shortly  before  his  death, 
put  an  end  to  the  schism.  In  235  he  was  banished  to  Sardinia 
in  the  company  of  St.  Pontianus,  the  second  successor  of  Callixtus. 
There,  if  not  earlier  and  at  Rome,  Pope  and  Anti-pope  appear  to 
have  become  reconciled.  There,  too,  both  succumbed  to  the  suffer 
ings  and  privations  of  their  lot.  Their  bodies  were  finally  interred 
at  Rome  on  the  same  day,  August  13.  in  236  or  237;  the  same 
date  was  also  chosen  for  the  commemoration  of  both. 

y.  Dollinger,  Hippolytus  und  Kallistus,  Ratisbon,  1853.  G.  Volkmar, 
Die  Quellen  der  Ketzergeschichte  bis  zum  Nicanum.  i :  Hippolytus  und 
die  romischen  Zeitgenossen,  Ziirich,  1855.  Hergenr other ,  Hippolytus  oder 
Novatian?  in  Osterreich.  Vierteljahresschr.  fur  kathol.  Theol.  (1863),  ii.  289 
to  340  (be  defends  the  authorship  of  Hippolytus).  C.  de  Smedt  S.  J.,  Disser- 
tationes  selectae  in  primam  aetatem  historiae  eccles.,  Gand,  1876,  pp.  83 
to  189  (for  Hippolytus).  Grisar,  Bedarf  die  Hippolytusfrage  einer  Re 
vision?  in  Zeitschr.  fiir  kathol.  Theol.  (1878),  ii.  505—533  (for  Novatian). 
Funk,  Uber  den  Verfasser  der  Philosophumenen ,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr. 
(1881),  Ixiii.  423 — 464;  Id.,  Kirchengeschichtl.  Abhandlungen  und  Unter- 
suchungen  (1899),  ii.  161 — 197  (for  Hippolytus).  y.  B.  de  Rossi ,  in  Bul- 
lettino  di  archeologia  cristiana,  Ser.  3,  a.  vi  (1881),  5 — 55;  Ser.  4,  a.  i 
(1882),  9 — 76,  a.  ii  (1883),  60 — 65,  maintains  that  Hippolytus  did  not  die 
in  Sardinia  but  returned  to  Rome  in  the  reign  of  Philippus  Arabs  (244  to 
249)  and  took  part  in  the  schism  of  Novatian.  In  the  persecution  of  Va 
lerian  (253 — 260)  he  was  condemned  as  a  Christian,  and  on  his  way  to 
death  recognized  the  error  of  his  ways  and  besought  his  friends  to 
return  to  the  unity  of  the  Church.  C.  Erbes ,  Die  Lebenszeit  des  Hippo 
lytus,  in  Jahrbticher  f.  protest.  Theol.  (1888),  xiv.  611 — 656  (Hippolytus  died 
Jan.  29. /3O.,  251).  y.  B.  Lightfoot,  The  Apostolic  Fathers,  part  I  (S.  Cle 
ment  of  Rome),  London,  1890,  ii.  317 — 477:  Hippolytus  of  Portus  (Hippo 
lytus  was  a  bishop  of  the  floating  population  in  the  maritime  town  of 
Portus,  but  resident  at  Rome).  G.  Picker,  Studien  zur  Hippolytfrage,  Leipzig, 
1893  (supports  the  theses  of  Dollinger  as  against  the  objections  of  de  Rossi 
and  Lightfoot).  —  The  most  important  «testimonia  antiquorum»  concerning 
Hippolytus  are  found  in  H.  Achelis,  Hippolytstudien,  in  Texte  und  Unter- 
suchungen,  Leipzig,  1897,  xvi.  4,  i — 62.  K.  J.  Neumann,  Hippolytus  von 
Rom  in  seiner  Stellung  zu  Staat  und  Welt.  Neue  Funde  und  Forschungen 
zur  Geschichte  von  Staat  und  Kirche  in  der  romischen  Kaiserzeit,  Leipzig, 
1892,  fasc.  i.  y.  Drdseke,  Zum  Syntagma  des  Hippolytus,  in  Zeitschr.  fiir 
wissenschaftl.  Theol.  (1902),  xlv.  58 — 80;  Id. ,  Noe'tos  und  die  Noetianer 
in  der  Hippolytus-Refutatio  ix.  6 — 10,  ib.  (1903),  xlvi.  213 — 232. 

2.  HIS  LITERARY  LABORS.  —  Shortly  before  or  after  his  death, 
a  marble  statue  was  erected  at  Rome  in  honor  of  Hippolytus  by 
his  schismatical  followers.  In  1551,  during  the  progress  of  certain 
excavations,  it  was  discovered  intact,  with  the  exception  of  the  head. 
On  either  side  of  the  chair  in  which  the  saint  is  seated  his  paschal 
cycle  has  been  inscribed ,  while  on  the  rounded  surface  that  unites 
the  back  of  the  chair  with  the  left  side  of  the  same  are  likewise 
inscribed  the  titles  of  many  of  his  works.  This  catalogue  is  com- 


212  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

pleted  and  illustrated  by  the  accounts  given  in  Eusebius1,  St.  Jerome2, 
and  other  writers.  The  works  of  Hippolytus  fill  us  with  astonishment, 
so  extensive  and  varied  are  they,  while  for  erudition  no  Western 
contemporary  can  approach  him.  On  occasions,  however,  he  was 
content  to  repeat  himself,  as  is  evident  from  a  comparison  of  his 
commentary  on  Daniel  with  his  previous  work  De  Antichristo.  The 
better  and  greater  part  of  his  labors  was  in  the  field  of  exegesis. 
Photius  praises3  the  simplicity  and  clearness  of  his  style,  without 
pronouncing  it  really  Attic.  At  present,  with  the  exception  of  a  fe\v 
imperfect  works,  we  possess  only  fragments  of  Hippolytus,  in  Greek, 
Latin ,  Syriac ,  Coptic ,  Arabic ,  Ethiopic ,  Armenian  ,  and  Slavonic. 
The  manuscript  tradition  of  his  writings  could  scarcelly  be  more 
broken  and  fragmentary;  their  remnants  turn  up  in  the  remotest 
parts  of  the  antique  world.  Often,  indeed,  these  fragments  must  be 
re-shaped  and  their  text  cleansed  from  foreign  scoria ;  only  here  and 
there  can  the  original  text  be  restored  with  comparative  freedom 
from  gaps  and  breaks. 

The  statue  is  reproduced  in  F.  X.  Kraus,  Real-Encyklopadie  der  christl. 
Altertiimer,  Freiburg,  1882—1886,  i.  660  —  664;  cf.  J.  Picker,  Die  alt- 
christlichen  Bildwerke  im  christlichen  Museum  des  Laterans,  Leipzig,  1890, 
pp.  i66ff.  Marucchi,  Guida  del  Museo  Cristiano  Lateranense,  Roma,  1898, 
pp.  79  ff.  --  His  writings  and  their  fragments  (except  the  Philosophumena) 
were  collected  by  J.  A.  Fabricius,  S.  Hippolyti  episc.  etmart.  opp.  Gr.  etLat., 
2  vols.,  Hamburg,  1716—1718;  Gallandi,  Bibl.  vet.  Patr.  (1766),  ii;  Migne, 
PG.  (1857),  x;  P.  A.  dc  Lagarde ,  Hippolyti  Rom.  quae  feruntur  omnia 
graece,  Leipzig  and  London,  1858.  A  new  edition  of  the  entire  works  of 
Hippolytus  is  appearing  in  «Die  griechischen  christlichen  Schriftsteller  der 
drei  ersten  Jahrhunderte»  :  Hippolytus'  Werke,  i:  Exegetische  und  homi- 
letische  Schriften,  herausgegeben  von  G.  N.  Bonwetsch  und  H.  Achelis, 
Leipzig,  1897;  cf.  Catholic  University  Bulletin,  Washington,  1900,  vi.  63 
to  76.  Collections  of  Syriac  fragments  are  met  with  in  de  Lagarde, 
Analecta  Syriaca,  Leipzig  and  London,  1858,  pp.  79—91,  also  in  Pitra, 
Analecta  sacra  (1883),  iv.  36—64  306-331.  Armenian  fragments,  in 
Pitra,  \.  c.,  n.  226—239;  iv.  64—71  331—337.  For  Old-Slavonic  texts 
cf.  Bonwetsch,  in  Harnack,  Gesch.  der  altchristlichen  Literatur,  i.  893  —  897. 

-  Brief  studies  on  all  the  literary  labors  of  Hippolytus,  in  C.  P.  Caspar  i, 
Ungedruckte  Quellen  zur  Geschichte  des  Taufsymbols,  Christiania,  1875, 

.377—409;  Lightfoot,  1.  c.  (§  54,  i),  ii.  388-405,  and  Harnack,  1.  c., 
i.  605—646;  Duchesne,  Histoire  ancienne  de  1'figlise,  2.  e'd.,  Paris  1006 
tome  i,  c.  xvii. 

we  have  already  remarked  (§  54,  i)  the  Philosophumena  are  not  men 
tioned,  neither  on  the  statue  of  Hippolytus  nor  in  the  catalogue  of  his 
works  by  Eusebius  and  Jerome.  Photius  calls  them  *  «the  labyrinth», 
rbv  Xaftijpw&ov,  and  Theodoret  of  Cyrus  5  calls  the  work  of  Hippo 
lytus  against  Artemon  «the  little  labyrinth»,  <>  aptxpbq  Xa^pt^oq.  It  is 

1  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.  22.  2  De  viris  ilL>  c   6l  3  Cod    I2i  2Q2 

Bibl.  Cod.  48.  5  Haeret.  fabul.   comp.   ii.   5. 

§    54-      HIPPOLYTUS.  213 

not  improbable  that  the  author  called  himself  his  work  «the  labyrinth 
of  heresies»  (cf.  x.  5  :  roy  hapopivftoy  ra)v  alplffscov').  In  the  course 
of  the  work  (ix.  8)  he  refers  to  the  first  four  books  as  follows :  Iv  role, 
<pdoffo<poufi.iyotQ  sc.  dSfpafftv,  i.  e.  «in  the  description  of  philosophical 
doctrines».  The  traditional  extension  of  the  title  «Philosophumena» 
to  the  whole  work  rests  on  no  intrinsic  evidence.  In  the  preface  he 
proposes  to  convince  heretics  that  they  have  not  taken  their  teach 
ings  from  the  Holy  Scriptures  or  the  Tradition  but  from  the  wisdom 
of  the  Hellenes,  Ix  TTJQ  *EXM)va)v  ffopiaQ.  Hence  the  comprehensive 
account  of  Hellenic  philosophy  to  which  the  first  four  books  are 
devoted.  In  the  first  book  there  is  an  outline-sketch  of  Greek  philo 
sophy,  based,  however,  on  very  unreliable  sources.  From  the  con 
clusion  of  the  first  book  it  seems  certain  that  the  second  book  dealt 
with  «the  mysteries  and  all  the  curious  fancies  of  individuals  about 
the  stars  or  spaces*.  The  contents  of  the  third  book  must  have 
been  similar,  for  at  the  beginning  of  the  fourth  (in  the  beginning 
mutilated)  he  is  still  combating  astrology  and  magic.  This  fourth 
book  is  doubtless  identical  with  his  work  « Against  the  Magi» 
fxara  judfcwj  that  he  refers  to  elsewhere  (vi.  39).  The  second  part 
of  the  work  opens  with  the  fifth  book,  the  description  of  the  he 
resies,  and  the  proof  of  their  heathen  origin.  Besides  the  accounts 
of  such  earlier  heresiologists  as  Irenaeus  he  made  use  of  a  number 
of  works  that  he  took  for  genuine  writings  of  the  heretics ,  but 
which,  in  the  hypothesis  of  some  modern  writers  like  Salmon  and 
Stahelin,  were  only  clever  forgeries.  The  tenth  and  last  book  con 
tains  a  summary  recapitulation  of  the  whole  work.  The  work  was 
probably  composed  towards  the  end  of  his  life.  He  seems  to  refer 
(x.  30)  to  the  Chronicle  of  Hippolytus.  In  any  case  the  pontificate 
of  Callixtus  is  described  (ix.  n  — 13)  as  a  thing  of  the  past.  --  A 
smaller  work  against  all  heresies 1,  published  long  before  the  com 
position  of  the  Philosophumena  (see  the  preface  of  the  latter),  is 
usually  known  since  Photius2  as  the  « Syntagma ».  The  latter  writer 
tells  us  that  it  contained  the  refutation  of  thirty-two  heresies,  G>JV- 
Taf/jta  xara  aiplffsatv  Aft',  beginning  with  the  Dositheans  and  ending 
with  the  Noetians.  It  is  now  lost,  but  its  contents  have  been  incor 
porated  with  the  writings  of  such  later  heresiologists  as  Pseudo- 
Tertullian  (Libellus  adversus  o  nines  haereses),  Epiphanius  (Haereses), 
and  Philastrius  (Liber  de  haeresibus).  The  fragment  of  a  work 
against  the  Patripassian  Noetus,  known  in  the  manuscripts  as  'Opdia 
£t£  nyy  atpeGw  NOYJ~O>J  ~wb&  is  no  homily,  but  the  ending  of  a  com 
prehensive  anti-heretical  work,  either  the  Syntagma  or  a  work  other 
wise  unknown  to  us.  Of  a  work  against  Marcion ,  known  to  Eu- 

1  Ens.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.   22;  Hier.,  De  viris  ill.,  c.  61. 

2  Bibl.  Cod.    121. 



sebius !  and  St.  Jerome 2,  only  the  title  has  been  preserved ;  perhaps 
it  is  identical  with  a  work  mentioned  in  the  statue-catalogue  as 
7t£p}  ttlfaftoi)  xdc  xoftev  TO  xaxov.  Another  lost  work,  the  famous 
Anonymus  adversus  Artemon,  an  Ebionite  Monarchian,  used  by 
Eusebius3  and  Theodoret  of  Cyrus4  was  very  probably  written  by 
Hippolytus5.  His  work  in  defence  of  the  Gospel  and  the  Apo 
calypse  of  St.  John,  mentioned  in'  the  statue-catalogue,  (r)a  orczp  TOU 
xara  'hodvyv  efuaJ^e^oD  xat  dxoxaktyscoQ,  has  perished;  not  even 
a  fragment  of  it  has  reached  us.  It  was  probably  written  against 
the  so-called  Alogi  who  wished  to  banish  from  the  Church  all  the 
writings  of  St.  John.  Some  very  interesting  fragments  of  a  Syriac 
version  of  another  work  of  Hippolytus  on  the  Apocalypse,  known  to 
Ebedjesu  (f  1318)  as  Capita  adversus  Caium  (in  Greek  probably 
xeydAaia  xard  Fato>j),  were  published  by  J.  Gwynn  (1888 — 1890). 
The  Anti-Montanist  Caius  had  pronounced  the  Apocalypse  to  be  a 
work  of  Cerinthus.  It  taught,  he  said,  a  millenarian  kingdom  of  carnal 
joys,  and  was  therefore  contradictory  of  the  recognized  canonical 
and  apostolical  writings.  Principally  Anti - Montanistic  also,  in  all 
probability,  was  the  work  entitled  on  the  statue  xspl  yapKrudrcov 
dxoorohxrj  xapddoaiQ,  unless  we  aught  to  read  two  titles :  mp}  %aptff- 
fj-drcov  and  d~oaToXt.xr]  xapdooaic,.  There  is  good  reason  to  believe 
that  the  same  work  is  the  basis  of  that  section  of  the  Apostolic  Con 
stitutions  wrhich  treats  of  the  «charismata»  (viii.  I — 2). 

Editions  of  the  Philosophumena  were  published  by  E.  Miller,  Oxford, 
1851;  L.  Duncker  and  F.  G.  Schneidewin,  Gottingen,  1859;  P.  Cruice, 
Paris,  1860.  The  Duncker  and  Schneidewin  edition  is  reprinted  in  Migne, 
PG.,  xvi.  3,  among  the  works  of  Origen.  The  first  book  of  the  Philosophu 
mena  is  accessible  in  a  new  recension  in  H.  Diets,  Doxographi  Graeci,  Berlin, 
1879,  PP-  551— 576;  cf.  pp.  144—156.  For  the  literature  of  the  subject 
cf-  §  54>  i'  G.  Salmon,  The  Cross-References  in  the  « Philosophumena »,  in 
Hermathena  (1885),  v-  389—402;  J.  Drdscke,  Zur  «refutatio  omnium  hae- 
resium»  des  ^Hippolytus ,  in  Zeitschrift  f.  wissenschaftl.  Theol.  (1902),  xlv. 
263  —  289.  The  latter,  following  a  hypothesis  of  Bunsen,  attributes  to  Hippo 
lytus  chapters  n  and  12  of  the  Epistle  to  Diognetus  (§  22);  they  were 
taken,  he  thinks,  from  the  Philosophumena.  Without  specifying  the  work 
whence  they  were  taken,  it  has  been  shown  by  grave  intrinsic  arguments 
mat  they  are  really  from  the  hand  of  Hippolytus ;  cf.  G.  N.  Bonwetsch, 
Der  Autor  der  Schluftkapitel  des  Briefes  an  Diognet  (Nachrichten  der 
Akad.  derWissensch.,  phUol.-hist.Kl.,  Gottingen,  1902,  fasc.  II).  H.  Stdhelin, 
Die  gnostischen  Quellen  Hippolyts  in  seiner  Hauptschrift  gegen  die  Hare 
tiker  (Texte  und  Untersuchungen,  vi.  3),  Leipzig,  1890,  pp.  i  — 108.  Con 
cerning  the  Syntagma  and  the  fragment  of  Contra  Noetum  see  R.  A.  Lip- 
sius ,  Die  Quellen  der  altesten  Ketzergeschichte  neu  untersucht,  Leipzig, 
1875,  PP-  91—190.  The  fragments  of  the  Capita  adversus  Caium  were 
published  m  Syriac  and  in  English  by  J.  Gwynn,  Hippolytus  and  his 
Heads  against  Caius»,  in  Hermathena  (1888),  vi.  397—418;  Hippolytus 

1  EMS.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.   22.  2  Hie).^  De  yiris  ^   c    6j 

:;  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  v.   28.  *  Haeret.   fabul.   comp.  ii     c 

5  Phot.,  Bibl.  Cod.  48. 

§    54-      HIPPOLYTUS.  215 

on  St.  Matth.  xxiv.  15 — 22,  in  Hermathena  (1890),  vii.  137 — 150.  There 
is  a  German  version  of  these  fragments  in  the  Berlin  edition  of  Hippo- 
lytus,  i.  2,  241  —  247,  where  the  two  fragments  on  Mt.  xxiv.  15  ff. ,  that 
Gwynn  attributed  to  the  commentary  of  Hippolytus  on  Matthew,  are  rightly 
adjudged  to  the  Capita  adversus  Caium.  For  the  other  five  fragments  on 
passages  of  the  Apocalypse  see  T/i.  Zahn,  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons, 
ii.  2,  973 — 991:  «Hippolytus  gegen  Caius»  (an  excellent  dissertation). 

4.  APOLOGETIC  AND  DOCTRINAL  WRITINGS.  -  -  Towards  the  end 
of  the  Philosophumena  (x.  32)  the  author  refers  to  an  earlier  work 
TTspl  rye,  TOO  TMVTOC,  ooGtaQ,  doubtless  the  one  entitled  on  the  statue- 
catalogue  Tipbc,  9EXXiqva£  xai  xpbc,  IlAdTcova  TJ  xal  Tispl  TOO  XUVTOQ. 
A  fragment  of  it  survives  under  the  title  'IcoayTioo  Ix  TOO  (xpbc,  C'EA- 
hjvaq)  Xofoo  TOO  exifsfpa/j./jfivoo  XO.TO.  IJAaTcovoQ  (IlXdTcoyo.)  r.zpt  TTJQ 
TOO  KCWTog  acTtaQ.  It  treats  of  Hades,  the  joys  of  the  just  and  the 
sufferings  of  the  wicked ;  in  its  traditional  form  it  contains  hetero 
geneous  and  spurious  elements.  Photius  was  acquainted 1  with  a 
work  in  two  books  known  as  'loMrqnou  its  pi  TOO  XOLVTUQ,  written 
against  Plato  and  the  theories  of  the  Platonist  Alcinous'on  the  soul, 
matter  and  the  resurrection.  It  undertook  also  to  prove  that  the 
Jewish  people  was  more  ancient  than  the  Hellenes.  The  fragment 
entitled  dirodsixTixy  xpbg  'looda'woQ  deals  with  the  misfortunes  of  the 
Jews  and  traces  them  to  their  crime  against  the  Messias.  It  is  of 
doubtful  authenticity;  none  of  the  ancients  mentions  any  large  work 
of  Hippolytus  against  the  Jews.  -  The  work  De  Antichristo*  is 
unique  among  the  writings  of  Hippolytus,  being  the  only  one  of  which 
the  complete  text  has  come  down  to  us.  It  purposes  to  describe 
fully,  according  to  the  Scriptures,  the  person  and  the  works  of  Anti 
christ.  It  is  dedicated  to  a  certain  Theophilus ,  a  friend  of  the 
author,  and  was  written  about  202.  The  statue-catalogue  mentions  a 
work  K£p\  #(eo)o  xal  aapxbc.  dvaardffe&z',  and  St.  Jerome3  was  ac 
quainted  with  a  work  of  Hippolytus  De  resurrectione.  Some  frag 
ments  of  a  treatise  of  Hippolytus  «To  the  Empress  Julia  Mammsea 
on  the  resurrection »  are  preserved  in  Syriac;  she  was  the  mother  of 
the  Emperor  Alexander  Severus  (222 — 235).  Perhaps  two  fragments 
of  Hippolytus  sx  TYJQ  rcpb^  ftaadida  TWO.  ima'o'kr^  preserved  in  Theo- 
doret  of  Cyrus,  and  a  fragment  in  Anastasius  Sinaita  sx  TOO  r.£p\ 
xal  dp&apffiaQ  Aofoo ,  belong  to  this  work.  The  ~po- 
Tipbc,  2efir]p£tvo.y,  mentioned  in  the  statue-catalogue,  is  other 
wise  unknown,  and  apparently  it  has  utterly  perished.  The  same 
fate  has  befallen  the  work  De  dispensatione  (nepl  olxovojuiac,  the  Incar 
nation)  mentioned  by  the  Syrian  Ebedjesu. 

For  the  fragment  of  «the  Origin  of  the  Universe*  cf.  Harnack,  Gesch. 
der  altchristl.  Lit.,  i.  622  f. ;  J.  Drdseke ,  Zu  Hippolytus'  «Demonstratio 
adversus  Iudaeos»,  in  Jahrb.  f.  protest.  Theol.  (1886),  xii.  456 — 461.  The 

1  Ib.  2  Hie,:,  De  viris  ill.,   c.   6 1.  3  Ib. 

2l6  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

work  «On  Antichrist*,  was  edited  by  Achelis  in  the  Berlin  edition  of 
Hippolytus,  i.  2,  3 — 47,  with  the  aid  (for  the  first  time)  of  a  Jerusalem 
codex  of  the  tenth  century  and  of  a  Slavonic  version  translated  (1895)  into 
German  by  Bonwetsch.  For  earlier  editions  and  the  manuscript-tradition 
cf.  Achelis,  Hippolytstudien ,  pp.  65—93.  The  edition  of  Achelis  is  dis 
cussed  by  P.  Wendland ,  in  Hermes  (1899),  xxxiv.  412—427.  V.  Grone 
made  a  German  version  of  the  De  Antichristo,  Kempten,  1873  (Bibl.  der 
Kirchenvater).  Some  profound  researches  on  the  same  book  are  due  to 
Fr.  C.  Overbeck ,  Quaestionum  Hippolytearum  specimen  (Dissert,  inaug.), 
Jena,  1864.  The  fragments  of  the  work  «On  the  Resurrection »  are  in  the 
Berlin  edition,  i.  2,  251 — 254. 

5.  EXEGETICAL  AND  HOMILETIC  WRITINGS.  -  -  Eusebius  was  ac 
quainted1  with  writings  of  Hippolytus  SCQ  rlrp  k^ar^spov  and  SJQ  TO.  JUBTO. 
rrjv  sgayfjispoy  (probably  on  Gen.  ii — iii).  St.  Jerome  describes  them2 
as  in  k^arjfispov ,  in  Exodum,  in  Genesim ,  and  elsewhere3  refers  to 
scholia  of  Hippolytus  on  the  Ark  of  Noah  and  on  Melchisedech.  He 
describes  minutely4  the  exposition  of  Hippolytus  on  the  Blessing  of 
Jacob  (Gen.  xxvii).  The  principal  remnants  of  his  Genesis  Commen 
taries  are  copious  scholia  on  the  Blessing  of  Jacob  (Gen.  xlix),  pre 
served  in  the  Octateuch-Catena  of  the  sophist  Procopius  of  Gaza. 
There  are  no  fragments  extant  of  Hippolytus  on  Exodus  and  Levi 
ticus.  Leontius  of  Byzantium  quotes  a  few  lines  from  Hippolytus 
on  Numb,  xxiii  or  xxiv,  under  the  title  Ix  rwv  edXo?uov  TOO  Ba- 
Aadfj..  and  Theodoret  of  Cyrus  has  saved  three  small  fragments  ecQ 
rrtv  MOT^  rr/v  psfatyy ,  i.  e.  on  the  so-called  Canticle  of  Moses 
(Deut.  xxxii).  A  late  Pentateuch-Catena  in  Arabic  contains  both 
genuine  and  spurious  scholia  to  Genesis,  Numbers  and  Deuteronomy. 
In  1897  Achelis  discovered  a  Greek  fragment  «From  the  exposition 
of  the  Book  of  Ruth».  Theodoret  of  Cyrus  quotes  four  short  pas 
sages  £*  ro\)  XofO'j  TO~J  sis  ?bv  'Ehavav  xa\  slq  TTJV  "Away.  The  statue- 
catalogue  mentions  a  work  on  the  Witch  ofEndor,  (slq  l^/^rr/^j^ov, 
that  is  called  by  St.  Jerome 5  De  Said  et  Pythonissa.  It  seems  to  be 
lost.  The  fragment  of  the  nocturnal  scene  at  Endor  published  by 
De  Magistris  in  1795  under  the  name  of  Hippolytus  is  apparently 
spurious.  The  work  on  the  Psalms  (slq  TOLJQ  $)aXjjLo6<;  or  (slg  <p)alfj.ooc, 
mentioned  in  the  statue -catalogue,  and  called  De  p  salmis  by  Je 
rome  6  was  only  an  opiisculum  in  paucos  Psalmos,  as  Jerome  expressly 
states  elsewhere7.  Theodoret  quotes  three  fragments  of  Psalm-com 
mentaries:  Ps.  ii.  7;  Ps.  xxii.  i  (Septuagint,  with  a  remarkable  passage 
on  the  sinlessness  of  Mary)  and  Ps.  xxiii.  7  (Septuagint).  Achelis 
proved  in  1897  that  all  other  fragments  of  Hippolytus-commen- 
taries  on  the  Psalms  in  Greek  and  Syriac ,  as  found  in  the  printed 
editions,  are,  with  the  exception  of  a  few  insignificant  ones,  spurious. 
In  the  same  year  Bonwetsch  was  able  to  add  some  Slavonic,  Ar- 

Hist.  eccl.,  vi.  22.  2  De  viris  m^  c>  6l  3  Ep    4g)    I9;   ^  2> 

Ep.  36,   16.  -  De  yiris  ni     c>  6l  c  Ib  7  i 

§    54-      HIPPOLYTUS.  217 

menian  and  Syriac  fragments  to  the  remnants  of  the  commentary  on 
the  Canticle  of  canticles,  SIQ  TO  affjua,  mentioned  by  Eusebius1  and 
Jerome 2.  Of  the  commentary  on  Proverbs 3  only  Catenae-fragments 
have  come  down  to  us;  the  commentary  on  Ecclesiastes *  has  appa 
rently  perished.  Theodoret  quotes  a  passage  of  Hippolytus  on  Is.  ix,  I 
as  ex  TO~J  Aoyo'j  TOO  sic,  TTJV  &P%yv  T0^  *H0aloo.  There  is  no  evidence 
to  show  that  Hippolytus  wrote  a  commentary  on  Jeremias.  He  did 
write  on  Ezechiel,  according  to  Eusebius5,  slg  pipr]  TOO  'IzZexiyA; 
at  least  one  Syriac  fragment  on  Ez.  i,  5  — IO  (the  Symbols  of 
the  Evangelists)  must  be  looked  on  as  genuine.  -  -  The  best-known 
and  the  longest  of  the  exegetical  works  of  Hippolytus  is  his  com 
mentary  on  the  book  of  Daniel.  In  1897  Bonwetsch  was  able  to 
publish  the  greater  part  of  it  in  Greek,  and  the  whole,  or  nearly 
the  whole  of  it,  in  Sclavonic  or  Old-Sclavonic,  together  with  a  German 
translation.  Besides  the  proto-canonical  book  of  Daniel  the  com 
mentary  treats  the  story  of  Susanna  and  the  Hymn  of  the  Three 
Children  in  the  fiery  furnace ;  in  the  text  of  Bonwetsch  the  narrative 
of  Bel  and  the  Dragon  is  lacking.  The  work  is  divided  into  four 
books,  was  written  about  204,  after  the  treatise  on  Antichrist  (iv. 
7,  i),  and  is  the  oldest  of  the  extant  exegetical  writings  of  the 
Christian  Church.  His  commentary  on  Zacharias  was  known  to  St.  Je 
rome6.  The  latter  was  also  acquainted  with  an  Hippolytus-com- 
mentary  on  Matthew 7 ;  in  certain  Oriental  Catenae  (Coptic ,  Arabic 
and  Ethiopic)  there  are  Hippolytus-scholia  to  Mt.  xxiv.  The  frag 
ment  in  Theodoret  ix  TOO  Xofoo  TOO  elq  TTJV  TWV  raMvTcuv  diavofji'qv 
must  have  been  taken  from  a  homily  on  the  parable  of  the  talents 
(Mt.  xxv.  14  ff);  similarly  the  three  fragments  in  Theodoret  on  the 
two  thieves  (S!Q  TOUQ  060  tyjardq:  Lk.  xxiii.  39  ff).  An  Armenian  trans 
lation  of  the  homily  in  quatriduanum  Lazaruni  II  is  found  among  the 
spurious  works  of  St.  John  Chrysostom 8.  The  two  recensions  of  this 
Armenian  text,  bearing  the  name  of  Hippolytus,  are  taken  from  «the 
commentary  on  the  Gospel  of  John  and  the  resurrection  ofLazarus». 
From  later  ecclesiastical  writers  we  learn  something  about  the  nature 
of  his  commentary  on  the  Apocalypse  (de  apocalypsi)^  particularly 
from  a  thirteenth-century  Arabic  commentary  of  an  unknown  author 
on  that  book.  -  -  Hippolytus  was  the  first  Christian  writer  to  com 
pose  lengthy  commentaries  on  books  of  the  Old  Testament.  He 
does  not  follow  closely  the  sequence  of  the  biblical  narrative,  nor 
dissect  the  text  minutely,  it  is  rather  the  principal  ideas  that  he 
selects  and  discusses  in  a  large  and  free  manner.  It  is  well  to  recall 
the  fact  that  his  contemporary  Origen  is  likewise  a  commentator  of 
the  Scriptures.  But  while  Origen  is  intellectually  the  superior  of 

1  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.   22.  *-  De  viris  ill.,   c.  61.  3  Ib.  4  Ib. 

5  Hist,   eccl.,  vi.   22.  '5  De  viris  ill.,   c.  61  ;   Comm.  in  Zach.,   praef. 

1  Comm.  in  Matth.,  praef.       s  Migne,  PG.,  Ixii.  775  —  778.      9  Hier.,  De  viris  ill.,  c.  61  • 

2l8  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

Hippolytus,  and  a  more  profound  thinker,  the  latter  possesses  a  fund 
of  exegetic  principles  more  clear  and  solid  than  those  of  Origen. 
Hippolytus  is  more  sober  in  his  exposition  and  his  principles  more 
like  those  of  the  later  Antiochene  school.  He  loves,  indeed,  to 
allegorize  and  makes  much  use  of  typology.  But  there  is  in  him 
a  certain  moderation;  he  gives  evidence  of  tact  and  taste,  and  of  a 
mind  open  to  the  historical  view  of  scriptural  things.  Many  fragments 
published  as  remnants  of  his  commentaries  have  really  drifted  down 
from  his  homilies.  A  sermon,  De  laude  Domini  Salvatoris,  that  he 
preached  in  the  presence  of  Origen  *,  has  perished.  From  the  ex 
tant  fragments  we  should  judge  that  the  work  on  Easter  (r^p}  TOO 
xdaya)  mentioned  by  Eusebius2  and  by  St.  Jerome3  was  a  paschal 
sermon.  The  sermon  «on  the  Epiphany » ,  slg  ra  afta  ftsoyavsta, 
extant  complete,  both  in  Greek  and  Syriac,  is  full  of  movement  and 
strength,  but  is  most  probably  a  spurious  discourse  on  baptism. 

The  best  collection  of  the  exegetic  and  homiletic  works  and  fragments 
of  Hippolytus  is  found  in  the  first  volume  of  the  Berlin  edition.  We  owe 
to  Bonwetsch  the  edition  of  the  commentary  on  Daniel  and  the  frag 
ments  of  the  commentary  on  the  Canticle  of  canticles ;  and  to  Achelis  the 
« minor  exegetical  and  homiletic  texts ».  The  Slavonic,  Armenian,  Syriac  and 
other  texts  are  given  in  German  translation.  See  Bonwetsch,  Studien  zu 
den  Kommentaren  Hippolyts  zum  Buche  Daniel  und  Hohen  Liede,  in  Texte 
u.  Untersuchungen ,  Leipzig,  1897,  xvi.  2;  Achelis,  Hippolytstudien  (ib., 
Leipzig,  1897,  xvi.  4).  All  the  fragments  of  Daniel  known  previously 
to  1877  were  published  and  commented  by  O.  Bardenhewer ,  Des 
hi.  Hippolytus  von  Rorn  Kommentar  zum  Buche  Daniel,  Freiburg,  1877. 
In  1885—1886,  B.  Georgiades  published  in  several  fascicules  of  the 
'ExxXY)<jta<mxf)  'AX^sia  (Constantinople)  the  Greek  text  of  the  fourth  and 
last  book  of  the  commentary  on  Daniel  vii— xii.  Cf.  Bonwetsch,  Die 
handschriftliche  Uberlieferung  des  Danielkommentars  Hippolyts,  in  Nach- 
richten  von  der  k.  Gesellsch.  der  Wissensch.  zu  Gottingen,  Philol.-hist. 
Klasse  (1896),  pp.  16 — 42.  For  a  spurious  passage  of  this  commentary 
(iv.  23,  3)  on  the  date  of  the  Savior's  birth  (Dec.  25.)  see  Bonwetsch, 
ib.  (1895),  pp.  515—527,  and  the  literature  referred  to  there  on  p.  515. 
The  Greek  text  of  the  Slavonic  fragment  on  Apoc.  xx.  1—3  (Berlin  ed., 
i.  2,  237  f.)  was  edited  by  Fr.  Diekamp ,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1897), 
Ixxix.  604—616,  and  shown  to  be  spurious.  G,  N.  Bonwetsch,  Hippolyts 
K^ommentar  zum  Hohenlied  auf  Grund  von  N.  Marrs  Ausgabe  des  grusini- 
schen  Textes  herausgegeben,  in  Texte  und  Untersuch.,  new  series,  Leipzig, 
1902,  vin.  2.  There  are  in  the  Codex  used  by  Marr  other  quite  unknown, 
and  as  yet  unedited,  Hippolytean  texts.  E.  Violard,  Etude  sur  le  commen- 
taire  d'Hippolyte  sur  le  livre  de  Daniel  (These),  Montbeliard,  1903.  Batiffol 
holds  that  Nestorms  is  the  author  of  the  Sermon  «On  the  Epiphany », 
Revue  Biblique  (1900),  ix.  341—344;  G.  Chalatiantz,  Uber  die  armenische 
V  ersion  der  Weltchronik  des  Hippolytus,  in  Wiener  Zeitschr.  fur  d.  Kunde 
.  Morgenl.  (1903),  pp.  182—186;  G.  N.  Bonwetsch,  Drei  Georgisch  er- 
haltene  Schnften  von  Hippolytus:  Der  Segen  Jakobs,  Der  Segen  Moses', 
Erzahlung  von  David  und  Goliath  (Texte  und  Untersuchungen,  xi.  i), 
Leipzig,  1904;  O.  Bardenhewer,  Neue  exegetische  Schriften  des  hi.  Hippo 
lytus,  in  Biblische  Zeitschrift  (1905),  pp.  1—17. 

1  flier.,  De  viris  ill,  c.  61.  *  Hist,  eccl,  vi.   22.  »  De  viris  m>>  c.  6l 

§    54-      HIPPOLYTUS.  219 

6.  CHRONOLOGICAL   WRITINGS.      CANON   LAW.     ODES.    -  -   Accord 
ing   to    Eusebius 1   and  St.  Jerome 2  a   work    of  Hippolytus ,    entitled 
on  the  statue-catalogue  dTiodet&g  ypovcov  TOO  ndaya  contained  chrono 
logical    disquisitions    and    a  paschal  cycle  of  sixteen  years  beginning 
with  the  year  222.    The  most  important  relic  of  this  work  is  visible 
in   the   paschal    tables    for   the   years    222 — 233    engraved    on    either 
side   of  the    chair  in  which  the  figure  of  Hippolytus  is  seated.     His 
«Chronicle»,    called   %povtxwv    (sc.   /9«/?>l0£?),    on   the   statue-catalogue 
and  very  probably  identical  with  the  work  mentioned  in  Philosophu- 
mena  (x.   30),    is  a  compendium  of  chronology  from  the  creation  of 
the  world  to  234.    Lengthy  fragments  of  it  have  survived  in  Greek; 
it   has   also    reached   us   in  Latin ,    through   three   distinct  recensions 
of  the   so-called  Liber  generationis  (mundi).  -  -  From    a   remark   of 
St.  Jerome 3   we   may   conclude   that   Hippolytus   wrote   also    on   ec 
clesiastical    law   and    customs.     There  is  no  evidence,    however,    for 
ascribing  to  him  the  authorship  of  such  late  collections    of  apostolic 
ordinances    as    the     Constitute  ones    per    Hippolytum .    the    Egyptian 
Church-Ordinance  and  the   Canones  Hippolyti  (§  75,  6  f).  —  Accord 
ing   to  the  statue-catalogue  he  also  wrote  Odes,    wdai,    but  nothing- 
more  is  known  of  them. 

The  fragments  of  the  work  on  Easter  and  the  Chronicle  are  indicated 
by  Harnack,  Gesch.  der  altchristl.  Lit.,  i.  625  ff.  The  different  recensions 
of  the  Liber  generationis  were  edited  by  Th.  Mommscn ,  in  Chronica 
minora  saec.  iv  v  vi  vii,  vol.  i  (Monum.  Germ.  hist.  Auct.  antiquiss.,  ix.), 
Berlin,  1892,  pp.  78  ff. ;  by  C.  Frick ,  Chronica  minora,  vol.  i,  Leipzig, 
1892,  pp.  iff.;  cf.  v.  ff.  Frick  maintains  that  in  the  Liber  generationis 
the  Chronicle  of  Hippolytus  is  used  only  as  a  source,  not  translated  or 
revised ;  but  his  thesis  seems  untenable.  On  the  Chronicle  see  H.  Gelzer, 
Sextus  Julius  Africanus,  Leipzig,  1885,  ii.  i,  i — 23;  H.  Achelis ,  Uber 
Hippolyts  Oden  imd  seine  Schrift  «Zur  groften  Ode»  (§  54,  5),  in  Nach- 
richten  von  der  k.  Gesellsch.  der  Wissensch.  zu  Gottingen.  Philol.-histor. 
Klasse,  1896,  pp.  272—276. 

7.  SPURIOUS  WRITINGS.  -  -  Among    the  writings   falsely  ascribed 
to  Hippolytus  two  may  be  mentioned :    the    Trsp}  TYJQ  aovreteiaQ  TOO 
xoff/wj,    compiled    from   his  work    on  Antichrist  (§  54,  4)  and    from 
writings  of  St.  Ephraem  Syrus,  but  not  earlier  than  the  ninth  century, 
also  a  work    xara  BypatvoQ  e'HhxoQ   TCOV  alpSTtxwv   xepi  fteoAoytag 
xat  Gapxwazcoc,,    written   perhaps  in   the   sixth  century  and   surviving 
only  in  meagre  fragments. 

The  work  De  consummatione  mundi  is  found  in  the  Berlin  edition,  i.  2, 
289 — 309.  In  his  Gesammelte  Patristische  Untersuchungen,  Altona,  1889, 
pp.  56  ff.  y.  Drdseke  has  undertaken  to  vindicate  for  the  Pseudo-Dionysius 
the  Areopagite  the  authorship  of  the  work  against  Beron  and  Helix,  but 
his  attempt  is  unsuccessful. 

1  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.   22.  2  De  viris  ill.,  c.  61. 

3  Ep.   71,   6. 


8.  THE  MURATORIAN  FRAGMENT.  -  -  The  Muratorian  Fragment,  so-called 
from  its  discoverer,  L.  A.  Muratori  (j  i75°)>  and  extant  in  an  eighth  cen 
tury  codex,  is  a  catalogue  of  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament,  mutilated 
at  the  beginning  and  perhaps  at  the  end.  Intrinsic  evidence  goes  to  show 
that  it  was  composed  in  the  West  (Rome?)  about  the  year  200.  The  very 
incorrect  and  difficult  Latin  text  is  perhaps  a  version  from  the  original 
Greek.  Lightfoot  attempted,  but  without  success,  to  claim  its  authorship 
for  Hippolytus.  Th.  Zahn }  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons  (1890),  ii. 
If  1  —  143,  and  G.  Kuhn,  Das  Muratorische  Fragment,  Zurich,  1892,  contain 
the  most  recent  and  exhaustive  commentaries  on  this  document.  For  more 
precise  details  see  the  manuals  of  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament,  and 
in  particular  Westcott,  On  the  Canon,  Appendix  C.,  7.  ed.,  1896,  pp.  530 
to  547.  --  A  new  edition,  with  a  proposed  restoration  of  the  Latin  text, 
was  brought  out  by  H.  Lietzmann,  Kleine  Texte  fur  theolog.  Vorlesungen 
und  Ubungen,  Bonn,  1902;  A.  Harnack,  Miscellen,  in  Texte  und  Unter- 
suchungen,  new  series,  v.  3,  Leipzig,  1900,  pp.  107 — 112. 

§  55.     Novatian. 

I .  HIS  LIFE.  -  -  The  schism  of  Hippolytus  was  perhaps  forgotten 
when  Novatian1  began  another  that  was  destined  to  an  almost  uni 
versal  extension  and  a  life  of  centuries,  especially  in  the  East.  In  250 
Novatian  was  a  very  distinguished  member  of  the  Roman  clergy; 
two  of  the  letters  addressed  by  that  body  to  Cyprian  of  Carthage2 
after  the  death  of  Pope  Fabian  (Jan.  20.,  250)  were  written  by  No 
vatian  (§  51?  5)-  Both  letters  represent  the  praxis  of  the  Roman 
Church  relative  to  the  lapsi;  the  writer  and  those  who  commissioned 
him  to  write  are  in  full  harmony  with  the  opinions  of  Cyprian.  No 
vatian  abandoned  the  Roman  traditions  and  betrayed  his  own  prin 
ciples  when  in  251  he  took  up  at  Rome  the  leadership  of  a  rigorist 
party  in  opposition  to  Pope  Cornelius  (from  March  251),  and  de 
manded  with  them  the  perpetual  exclusion  of  all  apostates  from 
ecclesiastical  communion3.  Concerning  his  later  life  and  his  end 
nothing  certain  is  known.  There  are  grave  reasons  for  doubting  the 
statement,  first  met  with  Socrates4  that  Novatian  died  a  martyr's 
death  in  the  persecution  of  Valerian  (257 — 260). 

On  the  schism  of  Novatian  see  v.  Hefele,  in  Kirchenlexikon ,  2.  ed., 
ix.  542 — 550;  Harnack,  in  Realencyklopadie  fiir  protest.  Theol.  und  Kirche, 
2.  ed.,  x.  652 — 670.  For  the  Cyprianic  epistles  30  and  36  see  Harnack,  in 
Theol.  Abhandlungen ,  C.  v.  Weizsdcker  gewidmet,  Freiburg,  1892,  pp.  14 
to  20.  Forged  acts  of  Novatian's  martyrdom  were  current  in  the  sixth 
century;  see  Eulogius  of  Alexandria  in  Phot.,  Bibl.  Cod.  182  208  280. 

Ammundsen,  Novatianus  og  Novatianismen  etc. ,  Kopenhagen,  1901; 
F.  Torm,  En  Kritisk  Fremstilling  of  Novatianus'  Liv  og  Forfatter- 
virksomhed  etc.,  Kopenhagen,  1901;  7.  O.  Anderson,  Novatian,  Kopen 
hagen,  1901. 

1  The  Latin  sources  usually  speak  of  him  as  Novatianus;  the  Greeks  write  mostly 

y«ro?,  Naudros,  Naftdrog. 

-  Ep.  30  and  36,  ed.  Hartel.  3  Socrates,  Hist,  eccl.,  iv.   28.  4  Ib. 

§    55-      NOVATIAN.  221 

2.  HIS    LITERARY    LABORS.  The    two    letters    to    Cyprian 
(§  55>  0  are  quite  sufficient  to  prove  the  superior  ability  of  Novatian 
as  a  rhetorician  and  a  philosopher.    It  is  admitted  also  by  his  earliest 
adversaries,    Pope  Cornelius l  and  Cyprian 2.     Jerome   is   the  first   to 
inform  us  about  his  writings :   Scripsit  autem  de  pascha,  de  sabbato, 
de  circumcisione ,    de  sacerdote,    de  oratione,   de  cibis  iudaicis,  de  in- 
stantia,  de  Attalo  multaque  alia  et  de  trinitate  grande  volumen,  quasi 
eTCLTOfr/jV  operis  Tertulliani  faciens,  quod  plerique  nescientes  Cypriani 
existimant3.     The   Epistolae   Novatiani   that  Jerome   mentions   else 
where4  are  perhaps  the  letters  sent  by  him  in  251   to  many  bishops 
in  order  to    gain  them  over  to  his  cause5.     Only  two  of  the  works 
mentioned    by  St.   Jerome    have    reached    us,    De   Trinitate   and   De 
cibis  iudaicis,    though    the    manuscripts    attribute    them  to  Tertullian 
instead    of  Novatian.     A  number   of  works    formerly   current    under 
the  name  of  Cyprian  have  recently  been  claimed  for  Novatian.    Among 
them  the  De  spectaculis  and  De  bono  pudicitiae  (§  51,  6  d — e)  are 
rightly  adjudged  to  him;    not  so,  however,   Quod  idola  dii  non  sint 
(§51,  4)  and  the  sermons  De  laude  martyrii  and  Adversus  ludaeos 
(§   51,  6  a — b).     Weyman  holds  that  he  is  the  author  of  the   Trac- 
tatus  Origenis  de  libris  SS.  Scripturarum,  disovered  in   1900. 

The  De  Trinitate  and  De  cibis  Iudaicis  were  first  printed  in  the  edition 
of  Tertullian  at  Paris  in  1545  by  M.  Mesnartius  (J.  Gangneius).  They 
were  also  printed ,  apart  from  the  works  of  Tertullian,  by  E.  Welchman, 
Oxford,  1724,  and  J.  Jackson,  London,  1728.  The  latter  edition  is  re 
produced  in  Gallandi,  Bibl.  vet.  Patr.,  Venice,  1767,  iii.  285 — 323  (cf.  xvi 
to  xix),  and  in  Migne,  PL.,  iii. 86 1 — 970. 

3.  DE  TRINITATE.     DE  CIBIS  JUDAICIS.  -  -  In  contents  and  form 
the  De  Trinitate  is  a  work  of  superior  merit.    In  close  adherence  to 
St.  Irenaeus  of  Lyons  the  author  treats  of  God  the  Omnipotent  Father 
(cc.  i — 8),  at  greater  length  of  the  Son,  of  His  divinity,  His  humanity, 
and  His  personal  distinction  from  the  Father  (cc.  9 — 28),  and  very  briefly 
concerning  the  Holy  Ghost  (c.   29).     Though  it  was  soon  afterwards 
held  to  be  a  work  either  of  Tertullian  or  of  Cyprian  G,  it  certainly  came 
from  the  hand  of  Novatian 7,  nor  is  it  an  extract  from  the  Adversus 
Praxcain  of  Tertullian  8.    It  was  probably  composed  before  the  out 
break  of  his  schism  and  even  before  the  persecution  of  Decius.    The 
De  Cibis  Iudaicis   is   a  work  addressed   to  the  Novatian  community 
in  Rome,    for   the   purpose  of  showing   how  certain    foods  were  de 
clared    unclean    by  the  Mosaic    law    in    order   to    withdraw    the  Jews 
from  the  sins  and  vices  symbolized  by  those  animals.    The  Christian, 
however,    apart    from    the    precept  of  temperance,    is  bound  only  to 

1  Ens.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.  43.  2  Ep.   55,    16   24. 

8  Hier.,  De  viris  ill.,  c.   70;  cf.   Ep.   36,    I.  4  Ep.    10,   3. 

5  Socr.,  Hist,   eccl.,   iv.   28.  6  Rufin.,  De  adult,   libr.   Orig. 

7  Hier.,  Contra  Ruf.,   ii.    19.  8  Hier.,  De  viris  ill.,   c.   70. 

222  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

avoid  the  use  of  meats  sacrificed  to  idols.  Occasional  reminiscences 
of  Seneca  are  worthy  of  note.  We  learn  from  the  writer  (c.  i)  who, 
probably  because  of  some  persecution  by  Gallus  and  Volusianus  or 
by  Valerianus,  dwelt  far  from  (Rome),  that  in  two  former  letters 
he  had  expressed  his  opinions  on  the  true  circumcision  and  the  true 
sabbath  *. 

For  the  DC  Trinitate  see  H.  Hagemann,  Die  Romische  Kirche  und  ihr 
Einflufi  auf  Disziplin  und  Dogma,  Freiburg,  1864,  pp.  371 — 411  (according 
to  Hagemann  the  work  is  not  from  the  pen  of  Novatian) ;  J.  Quarry,  in 
Hermathena  (1897),  no.  23,  pp.  36 — 70,  thinks  that  it  is  a  version  from 
the  Greek  and  that  the  original  was  written  by  Hippolytus;  G.  Landgraf 
and  C.  Weyman ,  in  Archiv  f.  latein.  Lexikogr.  u.  Gramm.  (1898 — 1900), 
xi.  221 — 249,  have  given  us  an  excellent  edition  of  De  cibis  ludaids. 
Th,  M.  Wehofer,  Sprachliche  Eigentiimlichkeiten  des  klassischen  Juristen- 
lateins  in  Novatians  Briefen,  in  Wiener  Studien  (1901),  xxiii.  269 — 275. 

4.  TRACTATUS  DE  LIBRIS  SS.  SCRIPTURARUM.  --  Under  the  name 
of  Origen  twenty  homilies  have  reached  us  in  an  Orleans  manuscript 
of  the  tenth  and  in  another  of  St.  Omer  belonging  to  the  twelfth 
century.  Their  subject-matter,  with  the  exception  of  the  last  (on 
the  miracle  of  Pentecost,  Acts  ii),  is  taken  from  the  Old-Testament. 
Batiffol,  who  discovered  and  edited  them,  accepted  the  evidence  of 
the  manuscripts;  according  to  him  the  homilies  were  really  com 
posed  or  delivered  by  Origen ,  and  Victorinus  of  Pettau  (§  58,  i), 
translated  them  into  Latin,  and  perhaps  revised  them.  When  con 
fronted  with  the  vigorous  refutation  in  the  seventeenth  homily  of 
Origen's  peculiar  denial  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  Batiffol  re 
plied  that  the  translator  had  simply  interpolated  the  text  of  the 
original,  using  for  that  purpose  the  De  resurrectione  carnis  of  Ter- 
tullian.  Weyman  has  shown  that  the  Latin  text  is  original  and  not 
a  version.  A  close  similarity  of  style  and  diction  suggests  Novatian; 
on  the  other  hand  the  Trinitarian  doctrine  of  these  homilies  (ed. 
Batiffol,  33  67  157)  seems  to  indicate  a  post-Nicene  composition. 
Dom  Morin  suggests  as  author  the  Luciferian  Gregory  of  Eliberis 
(§  87,  4)- 

Tractatus  Origenis  de  libris  SS.  Scripturarum  detexit  et  cdidit  P.  Batiffol 
sociatis  curis  A.  Wilmart ,  Paris,  1900;  C.  Weyman,  in  Archiv  fur  latein. 
Lexikogr.  u.  Gramm.  (1898—1900),  xi.  467?.  545—576;  G.  Morin,  in 
Revue  d'histoire  et  de  litterature  relig.  (1900),  v.  145—161;  Batiffol,  in 
Bulletin  de  litterature  ecclesiastique  (1900),  pp.  190—197  (against  Morin) ; 
283—297  (against  Weyman);  Funk,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1900),  Ixxxii. 
534—544;  E-  C.Butler,  The  New  Tractatus  Origenis,  in  Journal  of  Theol. 
Studies  (1901),  ii.  113 — 121  254 — 262  (non  liquet,  written  by  an  anonymous 
hand  in  the  fifth  or  the  sixth  century);  J.  Haussleiter ,  Novatians  Predigt 
iiber  die  Kundschafter  (n.  13)  in  direkter  Uberlieferung  und  in  einer  Be- 
arbeitung  des  Casanus  von  Aries,  in  Neue  kirchl.  Zeitschrift  (1902),  xiii. 
1 19— 143;  P-  Batiffol,  in  Civilta  Cattolica,  series  XVIII  (1902),  v.  589,  is 

Cf.   the  titles  De  sabbato  and  De   circumcisione,    in  Hicr.,  De  viris  ill.,    c.    70. 

§    56.      PAPAL    LETTERS.  22$ 

now  of  opinion  that  it  was  written  by  a  follower  of  Novatian  towards  the 
end  of  the  persecutions  (ca.  300 — 313).  In  the  Revue  Benedictine  (1902), 
xix,  226 — 245,  G.  Morin  gives  up  Gregory  of  Eliberis,  but  only  to  look 
for  a  still  later  author,  somewhere  in  the  fifth  century.  H.  Jordan,  Die 
Theologie  der  neuentdeckten  Predigten  Novatians,  Greifswald,  1902; 
P.  Batiffol,  in  Revue  Biblique  (1903),  xii.  81 — 93;  H.  Jordan,  Melito  und 
Novitian,  in  Archiv  fur  latein.  Lexikogr.  und  Grammatik  (1902),  xii.  59 
to  68;  y.  Baer ,  De  operibus  Fastidii  etc.  (cf.  §  94,  16);  E.  C.  Butler, 
An  Hippolytus-Fragment  and  a  Word  on  the  Tractatus  Origenis,  in  Zeit- 
schrift  fur  die  neutestamentl.  Wissensch.  (1903),  iv.  79 — 87.  The  so-called 
Tractatus  Origenis,  in  Journal  of  Theol.  Studies  (1905),  vi.  587 — 599. 

§  56.     Papal  Letters. 

1.  ST.  CALLIXTUS  (21 7  —  222).  —  Out  of  the  references  in  the  De 
pudicitia    of   Tertullian    (§   50,    5)    Rolffs    undertook,    with    doubtful 
success,  to  restore  the  text  of  the  penitential  or  indulgence  edict  in 
which    Pope    Callixtus    promised    forgiveness    and    reconciliation    to 
adulterers  and  fornicators,  conditionally  on  the  performance  of  public 
penance.      It    is    uncertain   whether   and    to   what    extent    the    other 
decrees  of  this   pope  in    matters  of  discipline  and  dogma  (§  54>    0 
were  reduced  to  writing. 

E.  Rolffs,  in  Texte  und  Untersuchungen  (1893),  xi.  3;  P.  Batiffol,  Le 
decret  de  Calliste,  in  Etudes  d'hist.  et  de  theol.  positive,  Paris,  1902, 
pp.  69 — no. 

2.  ST.  PONTIANUS  (230—235).  --  A  Roman  synod  of  231   or  232  con 
firmed  the  decrees  of  the  two  Alexandrine  synods  condemnatory  of  Origen 
(Hier.j  Ep.  33,  4).     It  is  probable  that  Pope  Pontianus  communicated  the 
action  of  the  Roman  synod  in  a  letter  to  Bishop  Demetrius  of  Alexandria. 

3.  ST.  FABIANUS  (236 — 250).  -  -  This  pope  wrote  a  letter  (litteris) 
in   approval   of  the   action    of  a   great   Numidian   synod    concerning 
Privatus,  bishop  of  Lambesa  in  Numidia1. 

For  letters  of  the  Roman  clergy  during  the  vacancy  of  the  see  from 
Jan.  250  to  March  251  cf.  §  51,  5c;  §  55,  i. 

4.  ST.   CORNELIUS  (251 — 253).   --  Amidst   the   letters  of  St.   Cy 
prian  2  are  two  from  Cornelius  addressed  to  the  former  concerning  the 
schism  of  Novatian.    At  least  five  letters  of  Cornelius  to  Cyprian  are 
lost3.     Three   letters   to    Fabius,    bishop    of  Antioch4,    and    one   to 
Dionysius,  bishop  of  Alexandria5,    dealt  with   the  same  schism,    but 
were  certainly  written  in  Greek.     Eusebius6   has  saved   for   us  some 
excerpts  from  the  third  letter  to  Fabius. 

P.  Constant,  Epist.  Rom.  Pont.,  Paris,  1721,  i.  125 — 206;  Ronth, 
Reliquiae  sacrae,  2.  ed. ,  iii.  n  —  89.  For  genuine  and  spurious  material 

1  Cypr,,  Ep.  59,    10.  2  Ep.  49   50. 

3  Cypr.,   Ep.  45,    i;   48,    i;    50;    59,    i — 2. 

4  £us.,  Hist.  eccl. ,    vi.  43,   3 — 4;    incorrectly  given    as  four  letters,   in  Hier.,  De 
viris  ill.,   c.   66. 

5  Ens.,  1.  c.,  vi.  46,   3.  6  Ib  ,  vi.   43,   5—22. 

224  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

cf.  Migne,  PL.,  iii.  675 — 848;  G.  Mercati,  D'alcuni  miovi  sussidii  per  la 
critica  del  testo  di  S.  Cipriano,  Rome,  1899,  pp.  72 — 86:  «Le  lettere  di 
S.  Cornelio  Papa»  and  (pp.  84 — 86)  a  new  edition  of  the  same  according 
to  important  readings  of  the  Verona  Codex.  It  has  been  mentioned  above 
(§  51,  6)  that  L.  Nelke  holds  Cornelius  to  be  the  author  of  Ad  Novatianum. 

5.  ST.  LUCIUS  i.  (253 — 254).  --  St.  Cyprian  mentions  (Ep.  68,  5)  one 
or  more   letters  of  St.  Lucius  concerning  the  treatment  of  those  who  had 
apostatized  in  the  persecutions. 

6.  ST.  STEPHEN  I.  (254 — 257).  —  Stephen  wrote  to  the  churches 
in  Syria   and  Arabia1,    also   in    consequence   of  the    controversy  on 
heretical  baptism    to    the   bishop  of  Asia  Minor2,    and    to  Cyprian3. 
It  has  been  conjectured  from  passages  in  Cyprian4  and  Firmilian  of 
Caesarea5  that  he  wrote  other  letters.     We  possess   only  his  famous 
decision  on  the  baptism  of  heretics  in  the  letter  addressed  to  Cyprian  6 
(cf.  §  Si,  i). 

Constant,  1.  c. ,  i.  209 — 256;  Harnack,  Gesch.  der  altchristl.  Lit.,  i. 

7.  ST.  SIXTHS  ii.  (257—258).  —  It  is  very  probable  that  Sixtus  also  wrote 
letters   on   the   question   of  heretical    baptism.     Concerning    the   thesis    of 
Harnack  that  Sixtus  is  the  author  of  the  pseudo-Cyprianic  Ad  Novatianum 
see  §  51,  6  f.     In  the  fourth  century  a  collection  of  moral    apophthegms, 
translated  into  Latin  by  Rufinus  of  Aquileja,    were    believed    by   many  to 
be  the  work  of  Pope  Sixtus.    They  are  a  later  adoptation  by  some  Chris 
tian   of  a  work  of  Sextus  the  Pythagorean  (not  so  Hier.,  Ep.  33,  3).     For 
recent  editions  of  Rufinus'  version  see  J.   Gildemeister ,    Sexti  sententiarum 
recensiones,    Bonn,   1873;   A.  Elter,  Gnomica,  Leipzig,   1892,  i.     For   the 
other  works  attributed  to  Sixtus  see  Harnack,  in  Texte  und  Untersuchungen 
(1895),  xm-   I>  64  f- 

8.  ST.  DIONYSIUS  (259—268).  —  On  the  subjects  of  Sabellianism 
and  Subordinationism  (Arianism)  pope  Dionysius  addressed  two  letters 
to  Dionysius  of  Alexandria 7  (cf.  §  40,    3).     St.  Athanasius  has  pre 
served8   a   precious   fragment   of   the  first  letter,    or   more    properly 
dogmatic  Encyclical.     The  pope  also  wrote  a  letter  of  consolation  to 
the  church  of  Caesarea  in  Cappadocia9. 

Constant,  1.  c.,  i.  269—292;  Routh,  1.  c.,  iii.  369-403.  Genuine,  and 
spurious  material  in  Migne,  PL.,  v.  99—136.  For  the  doctrinal  letters  to 
Dionysius  of  Alexandria  see  H.  Hagemann ,  Die  Romische  Kirche  Frei 
burg,  1864,  pp.  432—453- 

9.  ST.  FELIX  i.  (269—274).  —  The  letter  of  St.  Felix  to  Maximus,  bishop 
Alexandria,  and  his  clergy,  a  passage  of  which  was  read  at  the  council 

of  Ephesus  in  431   (Mansi,  SS.  Concil.  Coll.,  iv.   1188)  was  very  probably 
the  work  of  an  Apollinarist  forger. 

1  Dion.  Alex.,  in  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vii.  5,   2. 

'  Ib.,  vii.   5,  4;   Cypr.,  Ep.   75,   25.  s  Cypr.,  Ep.    74   75. 

Ep.  67,   5;   68.  *  Ib-;   75;   25  e  ^    ^    ^ 

r  Athan.,  Ep.  de  sent.  Dionys.,   c.    13. 

8  Ep.  de  deer.  Nyc.   syn.,   c.   26.  9  Basil.  Magn.,  Ep.   70. 

§    57-      COMMODIAN.  225 

Constant,  1.  c.,  i.  291 —  298,  defends  this  fragment  as  genuine;  it  is 
pronounced  spurious  by  Caspari ,  Alte  und  neue  Quellen  zur  Gesch.  des 
Taufsymbols,  Christiania,  1879,  PP-  IIT — 123-  See  Harnack,  Gesch.  der 
altchristl.  Lit.,  i.  659  f. 

10.  ST.  MILTIADES  (311 — 314).  —  Either  Miltiades,  or  the  Roman 
synod  of  Oct.  313,  wrote  a  letter  to  Constantine  concerning  the 
Donatist  schism;  it  is  referred  to  in  a  letter  of  the  Emperor1. 


§  57.     Commodian. 

1.  His  LIFE.  -  -  Only  his  own  works  make  this  writer  known  to 
us ;  even  the  account  of  him  in  Gennadius  2  is  taken  from  his  writings. 
He  was  brought  up  as  a  heathen,    but  embraced  the  Christian  faith 
after  reading   the  Scriptures,    especially  the  Old  Testament;    he  had 
probably  been  a  Jewish  proselyte  at  an  earlier  date.    The  eighth-cen 
tury  codex  of  his  Carmen  apologeticum  calls  him  sanctus  episcopus. 
His  language  shows  that  he  had  lived  in  the  Latin  West,  though  he 
was   probably  born    at  Gaza   in  Palestine3.     His   extant  works,    it  is 
conjectured,  were  written  about  250  or  a  little  later. 

G.  Boissier ,  Commodien,  Paris,  1886;  Freppel,  Commodien,  Arnobe, 
Lactance,  Paris,  1893,  pp.  i — 27.  His  two  works  were  edited  by  E.  Ludwig, 
Leipzig,  1877 — 1878,  and  B.  Dombart  (1887),  Vienna,  (Corpus  script, 
eccles.  Lat. ,  xv).  The  preparatory  labors  of  Dombart  are  found  in  the 
following  reviews:  Zeitschr.  fiir  wissenschaftl.  Theol.  (1879),  xxn-  374 — 3^9; 
Blatter  fiir  das  bayer.  Gymn.-  und  Realschulwesen  (1880),  xvi.  341 — 351; 
Sitzungsberichte  der  phil.-hist.  Kl.  der  k.  Akad.  der  Wissenschaft  zu  Wien 
(1880),  xcvi.  447 — 473;  (1884),  cvii.  713 — 802.  H.  Brewer,  in  Zeitschr.  fiir 
kath.  Theol.  (1899),  xxm-  759  —  763,  defended  a  singular  opinion  con 
cerning  the  date  of  the  writings  of  Commodian  («about  458  to  466))); 
G.  S.  Ramundo ,  in  Archivio  della  Soc.  Romana  di  Storia  Patria  (1901), 
xxiv.  373 — -391,  and  in  Scritti  vari  di  nlologia  a  Ernesto  Monaci,  Rome, 
1902,  pp.  215 — 229  (about  the  time  of  Julian  the  Apostate). 

2.  INSTRUCTIONES.    -        The    Instructiones  per    litter  as    versuum 
primas  are  a  collection  in    two  books  of  eighty  acrostic  poems,  un 
equal  in  length.    The  first  book  is  written  againsfc  Jews  and  heathens, 
scoffs  at  the  heathen  mythologies,  reprehends  the  depraved  manners 
of  the  heathens  and  the  stubbornness  of  the  Jews,    and  closes  with 
a   threatening    reference    to   the  Last  Judgment4.     The  second  book 
is  addressed  to  the  Christians,  with  the  intention  of  urging  all,  cate 
chumens  and  faithful,  lay  and  cleric,  poor  and  rich,    to  the  fulfilling 
of  their  duties  and  the  avoidance  of  sin.     The  text  has  come  down 
in  a  very  corrupt   condition,    the    diction  is   extremely  popular,    and 

1  Rouih,  Reliquiae  sacrae,   2.   ed.,   iv.   297.  2  De  viris  ill.,   c.    15. 

3  Gascus,  Instr.,   ii.   39. 

4  In  spite  of  the  manuscripts  Acrostics  42 — 45    belong  not  to  the  second,  but  to 
the  first  book. 

BARDENHEWER-SHAHAN,  Patrology.  15 

226  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

the  metre,  a  very  peculiar  hexameter,  governed  alternately  by  quan 
tity  and  by  accent.  All  the  poems  are  acrostic  (i.  28,  is  both 
acrostic  and  telestic),  i.  e.  the  initial  letters  of  the  successive  verses 
form  words  expressive  of  the  theme  and  the  title  of  the  poem.  The 
result  of  so  fantastic  a  plan  was  necessarily  a  stiff  and  cramped 
diction,  almost  wooden  in  its  rigidity.  His  biblical  quotations  are 
taken  from  St.  Cyprian's  Testimonia  adversus  Judaeos.  He  seems 
also  to  have  been  acquainted  with  Minucius  Felix,  Tertullian,  and 
the  « Shepherd »  of  Hermas. 

Editio  princeps,  by  N.  Rigaltius,  Toul,  1649  (Migne,  PL.,  v).  For  the 
editions  of  Ludwig  and  Dombart  see  §  57,  i.  Fr.  Hanssen ,  De  arte 
metrica  Commodiani,  in  Dissert,  philol.  Argentorat.  sel.  (1881),  v.  1—90; 
W.  Merer,  Der  Versbau  Commodians,  in  Denkschriften  der  k.  bayer.  Akad. 
der  Wissensch.,  Abhandlungen  der  philos.-philol.  Kl.  (1885),  xvii.  2,  288 
to  307. 

3.  CARMEN  APOLOGETICUM.  -  -  Quite  similar   in    its  scope  to  the 
first  book  of  Instructiones  is  the  poem  that  its  original  editor  entitled 
Carmen  apologeticum.    It  contains   1060  verses,  several  of  which  are 
either    fragmentary   or   illegible,    and    it   is   known    to    us  through  a 
single  eighth-century  manuscript.     A  prolix   introduction  (vv.    I — 88) 
is  followed  by  instructions  on  the  nature  of  God,  the  beginnings  of 
redemption  (89 — 276),  the  person  of  the  Savior  and  the  significance 
of  the  names  of  Father  and  Son  (277 — 578).     Then  come  stern  warn 
ings   to   the  heathens   (579 — 616)    and    to   the  Jews  (617 — 790).     In 
its  closing  lines  the  poem  rises  to  its  highest  perfection  in  a  formal 
description  of  the  Last  Judgment  (791  — 1060).     The    author    is    not 
mentioned  in  the  codex,    but  intrinsic  evidence  points  to  the  author 
of  the  Instructiones.    The  mention  of  the  seventh  persecution  and  of 
the   passage  of  the  Danube  by  the  Goths  (vv.   808  ff.)  suggests   the 
fifth  decade  of  the  third  century.    The  metre  is  that  of  the  Instruc 
tiones,    though   the   diction,    freed    from    the    bonds   of  the   acrostic, 
is  more  fluent  and  lively. 

The  editio  princeps  is  that  of  J.  B.  Pitra ,  Spicil.  Solesm.  (1852),  i. ; 
cf.  (1858),  iv.  222  —  224.  It  was  also  edited  by  J.  ff.  Ronsch,  in  Zeitschr. 
fur  die  hist.  Theol.  (1872),  xlii.  163 — 302.  For  the  editions  of  Ludwig  and 
Dombart  see  §  57,  i.  A.  Ebert,  Commodians  Carmen  apol.,  in  Abhand 
lungen  der  k.  sachs.  Gesellsch.  der  Wissensch.  phil.-hist.  Kl.  (1870),  v.  387 
to  420;  C.  Leimbach ,  Uber  Commodians  «Carmen  apol.  adv.  Gentes  et 
Iudaeos»  (Progr.),  Schmalkalden ,  1871;  B.  Aube,  L'Eglise  et  1'Etat  dans 
la  seconde  moitie  du  IIP  siecle  [249—284],  Paris,  1885,  pp.  517—544. 

4.  RETROSPECT.  -  -  There  is  little  to  attract  us  in  the  first  Christian 
poet,  from  the  standpoint  of  literary  form.    The  verse  clings  prosaical 
ly    to    the   earth;    only  occasionally,    especially   in    the  eschatological 
parts,    does   it  manifest   a   certain    afflatus    and    develop  a  degree  of 
majesty.    The  contents  of  his  writings  betrays  a  practical  and  sagacious 
ecclesiastic,    filled    with    benevolent    zeal,    but    endowed    with    slight 

§    58.      VICTORINUS  .  OF :  PETTAU    AND    RETICIUS    OF    AUTUN.  22/ 

theological  culture.  A  very  gross  form  of  Chiliasm  is  exhibited  in  both 
works1.  His  doctrine  on  God,  on  the  Trinity,  or  rather  his  theo- 
dicea,  scarcely  outlined  in  the  Instructiones,  appears  in  the  Carmen 
apologeticum  (vv.  89  ff.  277  ff.  771  ff;)  as  downright  Monarchianism 
or  Patripassianism. 

For  the  teaching  of  Commodian  on  the.  Trinity  see  J.  L.  Jacobi,  in 
Zeitschr.  fur  christl.  Wissensch.  und  christl..  Leben  (1853),  iv.  203 — 209. 
His  eschatology  is  discussed  by  L.  Atzbcrger,  Gesch.  der  christl.  Eschato- 
logie,  Freiburg,  1896,  pp.  555—566. 

§  58.     Victorinus  of  Pettau  and  Reticius  of  Autun. 

I .  VICTORINUS  OF  PETTAU.  -  -  Victorinus,  the  earliest  exegete  of 
the  Latin  Church,  was  bishop  of  Petabio  or  Petavio  (Pettau  in  Steier- 
mark)  in  the  closing  years  of  the  third  century,  and  died  a  martyr 
in : the  persecution  of  Diocletian2.  The  statement  of  Cassiodorus3 
that  Victorinus  was  a  rhetorician  before  he  became  a  bishop,  is  the 
result  of  his  confounding  our  writer  with  C.  Marius  Victorinus  Afer, 
a  .Roman  rhetorician  of  the  fourth  century.  Victorinus  of  Pettau 
was  probably  a  Greek  by  birth4,  though,  so  far  as  is  known,  he 
wrote  only  in  Latin.  He  left  commentaries  on  the  first  three  books 
of-"  the  Pentateuch,  on  Ecclesiastes  and  the  Canticle  of  canticles, 
Isaias,  Ezechiel  and  Habacuc,  St.  Matthew  and  the  Apocalypse,  also 
&~WQj&J3ldversum  omnes  haereses*.  These  works  do  not  exhibit 
either  a  cultivated  Latin  style  or  extensive  erudition6.  In  his  exegesis 
Victorinus  is  a  faithful  disciple  of  Origen,  though  he  gives  proof  of 
independence  and  good  judgment7.  Of  his  exegetical  labors  only 
the  commentary  on  the  Apocalypse  is  known  to  us;  as  early  as 
the  sixteenth  century  it  was  edited  in  two  recensions.  Though  the 
shorter  recension  is  the  basis  of  the  larger  one,  it  is  not  itself  the 
original  text,  but  only  a  revision  of  the  same  by  St.  Jerome.  The  con 
clusion  of  this  commentary,  repudiated  by  Jerome  because  of  its 
decidedly  Chiliastic  doctrine,  was  re-discovered  in  1895  by  Haussleiter. 
Gave  discovered  in  1688  a  Tractatus  Victor ini  de  fabrica  mundi.  It 
may:be,  the  work  of  our  Victorinus,  but  if  so  it  belongs  neither  to 
the  commentary  on  Genesis  nor  to  that  on  the  Apocalypse.  The 
work  -Adversum  omnes  haereses  has  been  identified ,  but  wrongly, 
with  fosyL&hcllus  adversus  omnes  haereses  printed  with  the  works 
of  Tertullian  (§  50,  8). 

y.  de  Launoy ,  De  Victorino  episc.  et  mart,  diss.,  Paris,  1653;  2:  ed. 
1664.  Complete  editions:  A.  Rivinus ,  Gotha,  1652;  Gallandi,  Bibl.  vet. 
Patr.  (1768),  'iv;; -49 — 64;  Mignc,  PLV  v.  281 — 344.  The  Jonger  recension 

1   Gctinad.,  De  viris  ill.,   c.    15.  2  Hier.,  De  viris  ill. ,"''€.-'74-.  -' 

3  Instit.,   i.   5    7.  4  Hier.,  1.   c. 

5  Hier:, •  1.   c. ;  Transl.   horn.   Orig.  in  Luc.,   praef. 

d  Hier.,  Ep.   58,    10;   70,   5.  7  Ib.,  61,   2;   84,   7. 


228  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

of  the  commentary  on  the  Apocalypse  is  in  Gallandi  and  Migne,  also  in 
the  Bibliotheca  Casinensis  (1894),  v.  i,  Floril.  1—21;  the  shorter  one 
e.  g.  in  Max.  Bibl.  vet.  Patr.,  Lyons,  1677,  iii.  414—421.  On  the  Chili- 
astic  conclusion  see  J.  Haussleiter,  in  Theol.  Literaturblatt  (1895),  xvi.  193 
to  199,  and  Zeitschr.  fur  kirchl.  Wissensch.  und  kirchl.  Leben  (1886),  vii. 
239 — 257;  cf.  Haussleiter,  Der  Aufbau  der  altchristl.  Liter.,  Berlin,  1898, 
pp  ^ — 37  ;  Beitrage  zur  Wiirdigung  der  Offenbarung  des  Johannes  und 
ihres  altesten  lateinischen  Auslegers  Victorinus  von  Pettau,  Greifswald,  1900. 
For  the  De  fabrica  mundi  with  copious  annotationes  cf.  Routh ,  Reliquiae 
sacrae,  2.  ed.,  iii.  451 — 483.  In  general  see  Preuschen,  in  Harnack,  Gesch. 
d.  altchristl.  Liter.,  i.  731 — 735.  The  De  monogram-mate  edited  by  G.  Morin, 
in  Revue  Benedictine  (1903),  xx.  225 — 226,  is  by  some  connected  with 
St.  Jerome's  revision  of  the  commentary  on  the  Apocalypse.  G.  Mercati 
published  from  an  Ambrosian  codex,  and  annotated,  some  fragments  of  a 
Latin  commentary  on  Mt.  xxiv.,  by  an  anonymous  Chiliast,  very  probably 
Victorinus  of  Pettau.  G.  Mercati,  Varia  sacra  (Studi  e  Testi  n),  Rome, 
1903,  pp.  3 — 49;  C.  H.  Turner,  An  Exegetical  Fragment  of  the  Third 
Century,  in  Journal  of  Theol.  Studies  (1904),  v.  218;  A.  Souter ,  The 
authorship  of  the  Mercati-Turner  Anecdoton,  in  Journal  of  Theol.  Studies 
(1904),  v.  608 — 621;  Dom  G.  Morin,  Notes  sur  Victorin  du  Pettau,  in 
Journal  of  Theol.  Studies  (1906),  vii.  456 — 459. 

2.  RETICIUS  OF  AUTUN.  -  -  Reticius,  in  the  reign  of  Constantine 
bishop  of  Augustodunum  (Autun),  the  city  of  the  Aedui,  was  highly 
esteemed  by  all  his  contemporaries  in  Gaul.  He  wrote  a  commentary 
on  the  Canticle  of  canticles  and  a  large  work  against  Novatian  1.  While 
the  diction  of  the  commentary  was  choice  and  pleasing,  it  contained 
many  singular  and  foolish  opinions2.  It  is  perhaps  in  the  work 
against  Novatian  that  St.  Augustine  found  the  remark  of  Reticius 
on  baptism  frequently  cited  by  him3. 

Histoire  litteraire  de  la  France,  Paris,  1733,  i.  2,  59 — 63.  Acta  SS.  Jul., 
Venice,  1748,  iv.  587 — 589;  Harnack,  Gesch.  der  altchristl.  Liter.,  i.  751  f. 


§  59.    The  Acts  of  the  Martyrs. 

i.  PRELIMINARY  REMARK.  -  -  Narratives  of  martyrdom  have  at 
all  times  specially  fascinated  the  hearts  of  the  faithful.  It  was  custo 
mary,  at  a  very  early  date,  to  celebrate  with  a  liturgical  service  the 
anniversary  of  the  martyr's  death4;  it  was  also  customary  on  such 
occasions  to  read  to  the  Christian  community  a  narrative  of  the 
events  that  culminated  in  so  glorious  a  sacrifice5.  In  the  first 
quarter  of  the  fourth  century  Eusebius  made  a  collection  of  ancient 
«Acts  of  the  martyrs»  now  known  to  us  only  by  quotations6.  Those 
accounts  of  the  earliest  Christian  martyrdoms  which  have  reached  us 

1  Hier.,  De  viris  ill.,  c.  82.  2  flier.,  Ep.   37;   cf.  Ep.   5,   2. 

Aug.,  Contra  lulian,   i.   3,   7  ;  Opus  imperfectum  contra  lulianum,   i.   55. 

Mart.  S.  Polyc.,  c.    18,   3.  5  Acta  SS.   Perp.   et  Felic.,   cc.    i    21. 

6  Eus.,  Hist,   eccl.,   iv.    15,   47;  v.,  prooem.,   2,   al. 

§  59-   THE  ACTS  OF  THE  MARTYRS.  22Q 

may  be  divided  into  three  groups.  Some  are  official  documents, 
records  (acta,  gesta)  made  by  the  notaries  of  the  civil  court,  but 
handed  down  in  a  form  calculated  to  edify  the  Christian  reader. 
The  second  group  is  made  up  of  the  narratives  of  those  who  saw 
and  heard  the  details  of  the  martyr's  death  (passiones).  They  are 
lacking  in  official  authenticity,  but  merit  the  closest  attention  of  the 
historian.  The  third  group  is  composed  of  accounts  of  martyrdom, 
put  together  at  a  later  period,  some  of  them  enlarging  partly  and 
partly  ornamenting  the  original  story,  while  others  are  purely  literary 
figments.  We  mention  here  only  such  very  ancient  Acta  as  have 
always  been  held  to  be  genuine  and  trustworthy. 

The  collections  of  Lives  of  saints  and  Acts  of  martyrs  published  by 
B.Mombritius  (about  1476  at  Milan),  by  AL  Lipomanus  (1551 — 1560  at  Venice 
and  Rome),  and  by  L.  Surius  (Cologne,  1570 — 1575,  and  often  since)  were 
all  surpassed  by  the  Acta  Sanctorum  of  the  Jesuit  J,  Bolland  (f  1665), 
and  his  colleagues  known  as  the  Bollandists.  This  noble  enterprise  has 
reached  its  sixtieth  volume,  and  is  not  yet  complete.  Since  1882  it  is  sup 
plemented  by  a  periodical  publication,  the  Analecta  Bollandiana.  Cf.  Biblio- 
theca  hagiographica  graeca  seu  elenchus  vitarum  sanctorum  graece  typis 
impressarum,  edd.  Hagiographi  Bollandiani ,  Brussels,  1895.  Bibliotheca 
hagiographica  latina  antiquae  et  mediae  aetatis,  edd.  Socii  Bollandiani,  Brus 
sels,  1898  ff.  (now  complete  in  two  volumes  and  a  supplement  1898 — 1899, 
1900 — 1901).  A  compendious  translation,  and  a  continuation  «Les  Petits 
Bollandistes«  which  is  complete  (seventeen  volumes,  with  Appendix  in  three 
volumes)  has  been  published,  Paris,  1888.  A  critical  sifting  of  the  Acts  of 
the  martyrs  of  the  first  four  centuries  was  undertaken  by  the  Benedictine 
Th.  Ruinart:  Acta  primorum  martyrum  sincera  et  selecta,  Paris,  1689 ;  2.  ed., 
Amsterdam,  1713;  often  reprinted,  e.  g.  Ratisbon,  1859.  ~~  E.  Le  Blant, 
Les  Actes  des  martyrs,  in  Memoires  de  1'Inst.  Nat.  de  France,  Acad.  des 
inscriptions  et  belles-lettres  (1883),  xxx.  2,  57 — 347.  K.  J.  Neumann,  Der 
romische  Staat  und  die  allgmeine  Kirche  bis  auf  Diokletian,  Leipzig,,  1890, 
i.  274 — 331 :  «Zur  Kritik  der  Acta  Sanctorum».  Preuschen }  in  Harnack, 
Geschichte  der  altchristl.  Literatur,  i.  807 — 834.  —  H.  Achelis,  Die  Martyro- 
logien,  ihre  Geschichte  und  ihr  Wert  (Abhandlungen  der  kgl.  Gesellsch. 
der  Wissensch.  zu  Gottingen,  Berlin,  1900).  O.  v.  Gebhardt,  Acta  marty 
rum  selecta.  Ausgewahlte  Martyrerakten  und  andere  Urkunden  aus  der 
Verfolgungszeit  der  christlichen  Kirche,  Berlin,  1902.  R.  Knopf,  Aus 
gewahlte  Martyrerakten,  Tiibingen  and  Leipzig,  1901  (Sammlung  ausgewahlter 
kirchen-  und  dogmengeschichtlicher  Quellenschriften ,  ed.  by  Kruger, 
series  ii.  2).  H.  Leclerq,  Les  martyrs.  Recueil  des  pieces  authentiques  sur 
les  martyrs  depuis  Forigine  du  Christianisme  jusqu'au  xxe  siecle,  Paris,  1902 
to  1904.  i— iii.  B.  Alasia,  Atti  autentici  di  alcuni  santi  martiri  scelti  e 
tradotti,  2  voll.,  Torino,  1863. 

2.  MARTYRIUM  S.  POLYCARPI.  --The  oldest  Acts  that  we  possess 
are  found  in  the  encyclical  letter  of  the  Church  of  Smyrna  concerning 
the  martyrdom,  at  the  age  of  eighty-six,  of  its  bishop  Polycarp.  He 
suffered  with  other  Christians  of  Smyrna,  February  23.,  155.  The 
narrative  is  so  straightforward,  lively  and  emotional  that  there  can 
be  no  suspicion  of  forgery.  Eusebius  incorporated  the  greater  part 
of  it  (cc.  8 — 19,  i)  in  his  Church  History  (iv.  15).  It  was  composed 



before  the  first  anniversary  of  the  death  of  Polycarp  (c.  18,  3).  In 
the  manuscripts  the  original  text  (cc.  1  —  20)  has  been  enriched  with 
additions  (cc.  21 — 22)  by  later  hands.  An  ancient  Latin  version  has 
also  reached  us,  but  is  paraphrastic  and  carelessly  executed. 

y.  Ussher  was  the  first  to  publish  the  Greek  text,  London,  1647.  It  is 
best  edited  in  the  recent  editions  of  the  Letter  to  the  Philippians  of  St.  Poly- 
carp  by  Zahn ,  Leipzig,  1876;  Funk  y  Tubingen,  1878  1887  1902  (in  the 
last  edition  a  Jerusalem  Codex  S.  Sepulchri  was  first  used)  ;  Lightfoot, 
London,  1885  1889  (cf.  §  10,  2),  and  v.  Gebhardt,  Acta  etc.  There  is 
also  in  Zahri s  edition  a  new  recension  of  the  ancient  Latin  version;  cf. 
A.  Harnack,  Die  Zeit  des  Ignatius,  Leipzig,  1878,  pp.  75 — 90.  For  the 
letter  itself  see  E.  Egli,  Altchristliche  Studien,  Zurich,  1887,  pp.  61 — 79. 

3.  ACTA   SS.    CARPI,    PAPYLI   ET   AGATHONICES.  —  111    the    reign    of 
Marcus  Aurelius  (161 — 180),  very  probably  while  Lucius  Verus  was 
still  his  colleague  (161 — 169),  Carpus,  bishop  ofThyatira,  and  Papylus, 
deacon  of  Thyatira  (?),  were  condemned  to  the  stake,  after  a  steadfast 
confession  of  their  faith.    A  Christian  woman,  Agathonice,  who  stood 
by,  threw  herself  voluntarily  into  the  flames.     The  narrative  is  very 
simple  and  touching,  and  was  evidently  composed  by  an  eye-witness. 
It  is   also  mentioned    by  Eusebius 1.     A    longer  recension   that   goes 
back   to  Simeon  Metaphrastes   in    the  tenth    century  wrongly  places 
the  martyrdom  in  the  time  of  Decius. 

The  longer  recension  is  in  Migne,  PG.,  cxv.  105 — 126.  The  original 
text  was  first  published  by  B.  Aube  from  a  twelfth-century  (?)  manuscript, 
in  Revue  archeologique ,  new  series  (1881),  xlii.  348 — 360,  and  again  in 
1'Eglise  et  1'Etat  dans  la  seconde  moitie  du  III6  siecle,  Paris,  1885,  pp.  499 
to  506.  A  new  edition  of  the  same  manuscript  with  commentary  by  Harnack 
is  to  be  found  in  Texte  und  Untersuchungen  (1888),  hi.  3 — 4  433 — 466; 
and  another  edition  was  made  by  v.  Gebhardt,  Acta  etc. 

4.  ACTA  SS.  JUSTINI  ET  SOCIORUM.  —  Between   163  and   167  the 
Apologist  Justin   and   six   other  Christians  were    cast   into    prison    at 
Rome,  because  of  their  Christian  faith,  by  order  of  Junius  Rusticus, 
prefect  of  the  City;  they  were  scourged  and  beheaded.    Apart  from 
the  beginning  and  the  end,  these  brief  acts,  apparently  unknown  to 
Eusebius,  are  a  copy  of  the  official  records. 

The  Greek  text  was  first  published  in  the  Acta  Sanctorum  Jim.,  Ant 
werp,  1695,  Venice,  1741,  i.  20—21;  later  among  the  works  'of  Justin, 
in  Migne,  PG.,  vi.  1565  —  1572;  cf.  1795  f.,  and  better  in  v.  Otto,  Corpus 
apol.  Christ.,  Jena,  1879,  "i.  3,  266—279;  <*  xlvi— 1;  also  in  7*.  Gebhardt, 
Acta  etc.  P.  Franchi  de' Cavalier i ,  Note  agiografiche.  I:  Gli  Atti  del 
martirio  di  S.  Ariadne.  II:  Gli  Atti  di  S.  Giustino,  in  Studi  e  Testi,  Rome, 
1902,  viii. 

the   seventeenth   year   of  Marcus  Aurelius    (177—178)    the  Christian 

1  Ens.,  Hist,  eccl.,   iv.    15,   48. 

§  59-   THE  ACTS  OF  THE  MARTYRS.  231 

community  of  Lyons  was  tried  by  a  severe  persecution  1.  When  its 
fury  had  been  spent,  the  Christians  of  Lyons  and  Vienne  sent  to  the 
brethren  in  Asia  Minor  a  minute  and  picturesque  narrative  of  the 
terrible  events  they  had  survived.  Lengthy  fragments,  all  too  brief 
to  satisfy  our  curiosity,  have  been  saved  for  us  in  the  Church  History 
of  Eusebius  (v.  I — 4). 

These  fragments  may  also  be  found  in  Routh,  Reliquiae  sacrae,  2.  ed., 
Oxford,  1846,  i.  293  —  371,  and  in  v.  Gebhardt ,  Acta  etc.  --  O.  HirscJi- 
feld,  Zur  Geschichte  des  Christentums  in  Lugdunum  vor  Konstantin,  in 
Sitzungsberichte  der  kgl.  preussischen  Akad.  der  Wissensch.  zu  Berlin,  1895, 

6.  ACTA    MARTYRUM    SCILITANORUM.   -       The    first    fruits    of   the 
martyrs  of  Africa  were  twelve  men  and  women  of  Scili  in  Numidia. 
They  appeared  before  the  proconsul,  P.  Vigellius  Saturninus,  at  Carthage 
July   17.,    1 80,    and    were    condemned    as  Christians   to    die    by    de 
capitation.    Their  Acts  have  reached  us  in  three  Latin  and  one  Greek 
recension.    The  shortest  of  the  Latin  texts  offers  the  substance  of  the 
court-records  of  the  trial,  while  the  other  two  give  evidence  of  later 
changes  and  additions.    The  Greek  text  is  a  version  of  the  Latin. 

For  the  three  Latin  recensions  cf.  Ruinart,  1.  c.  (§  59,  i),  2.  ed.,  pp.  84 
to  89,  the  shortest  and  oldest  one  is  given  there  in  fragmentary  condition. 
H.  Usener  first  published  the  Greek  text,  in  Index  Schol.  Bonn,  per  menses 
aest.  a.  1881.  All  previously  (to  1881)  known  texts  are  printed  by  B.  Aube, 
Etude  sur  im  nouveati  texte  des  Actes  des  martyrs  Scillitains,  Paris,  1881. 
The  shortest  and  oldest  Latin  text  is  found  complete,  in  Analecta  Bolland. 
(1889),  viii.  5 — 8;  cf.  (1897),  xvi.  64  f.  A  complete  collection  of  all  re 
lative  texts  is  given  by  J.  A.  Robinson,  in  Texts  and  Studies  (1891),  i.  2, 
104 — 121,  also  in  v.  Gebhardt,  Acta  etc.  Cf.  Neumann,  1.  c.  (see  §  59,  i), 
i.  71 — 74  284 — 286;  Zahn,  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons  (1892),  ii.  2, 

7.  ACTA  S.  APOLLONH.  —  Eusebius  relates  in  his  Church  History 
(v.   21)    that    during    the    reign    of   Commodus    (180 — 192)    a    highly 
cultured    and  esteemed  Christian  of  Rome,    named  Apollonius,    was 
beheaded  after  an  eloquent  defence  of  his  faith  before  the  praefectus 
praetor io  Perennis  (180 — 185)  and  the  Roman  Senate.     It  was  easy 
to    recognize    mere    conjecture    in    the    additional    details    given    by 
St.  Jerome2.    Very  doubtful,  in  particular,  seemed  the  statement  that 
Apollonius    had    read  before    the  Senate   an  excellent   work  (insigne 
volumen)  in  defence  of  his  faith.    It  was  therefore  a  matter  of  general 
surprise  when  Conybeare  discovered  (1893)  an  Armenian  text  of  the 
« Martyrdom    of  S.   Apollonius   the  Ascetic ».     Shortly  after  the  Bol- 
landists  made  known  a  Greek  text  of  the   « Martyrdom  of  the  holy 
and  celebrated   apostle  Apollos»   (sic).     Both  texts  contain  the  Acts 
of  Apollonius  as  known  to  Eusebius,   though  more  or  less  disfigured 
by  later  changes  and  additions.    Given  the  actual  state  of  the  Acts, 

1  Ib.,  v.,  prooem.,    i.  ~  De  viris  ill.,  c.  42   53;   Ep.   70,  4. 

232  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

it  is  not  easy  to  unravel  with  clearness  the  course  of  the  trial,  nor  to 
discern  the  role  which  fell  to  the  Senate.  The  d.xo'koft.a  referred  to 
by  Eusebius  must  have  been  made  up  of  the  questions  of  the  judge 
Perennis  and  the  replies  of  Apollonius.  The  martyr  outlines  broadly 
the  teachings  of  Christian  faith  and  morality.  His  exposition  is  re 
markable  for  its  firmness  and  dignity  as  well  as  for  the  candor  of 
mind  and  the  tranquillity  of  spirit  that  it  reveals. 

The  Armenian  «Martyrium»  is  found  in  the  Armenian  collection  of 
the  Acts  of  the  Martyrs  published  at  Venice  in  1874  by  the  Mechitarists 
(i.  138 — 143).  F.  C.  Conybeare  published  an  English  version  in  The  Guar 
dian,  June  1 8.,  1893,  and  again  in  his  « Apology  and  Acts  of  Apollonius 
and  other  monuments  of  early  Christianity,  London,  1894;  2.  ed.  1896. 
A  German  version  by  Bur  char  di  was  communicated  by  Harnack ,  in 
Sitzungsberichte  der  kgl.  preussischen  Akad.  der  Wissensch.  zu  Berlin,  1893, 
pp.  721 — 746.  The  Bollandists  published  the  Greek  text  of  the  «Mar- 
tyrium»  from  a  cod.  Paris,  (saec.  xi  vel  xii),  in  Anal.  Bolland.  (1895),  xiv. 
284 — 294.  E.  Th.  Klette  published  a  new  edition  (with  a  German  version 
from  the  same  Greek  codex,  together  with  Bur  char dz  s  translation  of  the 
Armenian  text,  in  Texte  und  Untersuchungen  (1897),  xv.  2,  91  ff. ;  Max  Prinz 
von  Sachsen,  Der  heilige  Martyrer  Apollonius  von  Rom,  historisch-kritische 
Studie,  Mainz,  1903;  R.  Seeberg,  in  Neue  kirchl.  Zeitschr.  (1893),  iv.  836 
to  872;  Th.  Mommsen  y  in  Sitzungsber. ,  Berlin,  1894,  pp.  497 — 503; 
A.  Hilgenfdd,  in  Zeitschr.  fur  wissenschaftl.  Theol.  (1894),  xxxvii.  58 — 91; 
(1898),  xli.  185 — 250;  R.  Seeberg,  in  Theol.  Literaturblatt  (1900),  xxi.  225  f . ; 
y.  Gcffckcn,  Die  Acta  Apollonii,  in  Nachrichten  von  der  kgl.  Gesellsch. 
der  Wissensch.  in  Gott.,  phil.-hist.  Kl.  (1904),  iii.  v.  Gebhardt  gives  in  his 
«Acta»  the  Greek  text  and  the  version  of  Burchardi. 

8.  ACTA  SS.  PERPETUAE  ET  FELICITATIS.  —  On  March  7.,  2O2  or 
203,  probably  at  Carthage  in  Roman  Africa  and  not  at  Thuburbo, 
five  catechumens  died  for  their  faith.  They  were  Vibia  Perpetua, 
a  youthful  matron  of  good  social  standing,  Saturninus  and  Saturus, 
and  two  slaves  Felicitas  and  Revocatus.  With  the  aid  of  the  auto 
graph  notes  left  by  St.  Perpetua  and  St.  Saturus  an  eye-witness  com 
posed  a  forcible  and  animated  narrative  of  their  martyrdom  that 
has  always  been  looked  on  as  the  pearl  of  this  species  of  literature. 
We  possess,  in  addition  to  the  original  Latin,  the  text  of  an  ancient 
Greek  version ;  a  second,  considerably  shorter,  Latin  text  is  notably 
a  later  excerpt,  probably  taken  from  the  Greek  version.  While  it 
is  true  that  the  author  or  editor  of  these  Acts  belonged  to  the 
party  of  the  Montanists  (cc.  i  21)  and  was  probably  none  other 
than  Tertullian1,  there  is  no  evidence  to  show  that  the  martyrs 
themselves  were  Montanists.  As  late  as  the  fifth  century  these  Acts 
where  still  read  at  Hippo  on  the  anniversary  of  the  martyrs,  in  natali 
martyrum  Perpetuae  et  Felicitatis*. 

w.  For  ^e    ori.ginal  Latin   text  see  Ruinart ,    1.   c.,    2.  ed.,    pp.  90—119; 
Itgne,    PL.,    in.   13—60;    cf.    pp.  61—170.     The    shorter  Latin   text   was 

Tert.,  De  anima,  c.   55.  2  Aug ^  germ    2go_282t 

§  59'   THE  ACTS  OF  THE  MARTYRS.  233 

edited  by  B.  Aube,  in  1881 ;  the  ancient  Greek  version  by  J.  R.  Harris 
and  S.  K.  Gifford,  in  1890.  A  good  edition  of  all  three  texts  is  that  of 
y.  A.  Robinson,  The  Passion  of  St.  Perpetua,  Cambridge,  1901,  in  Texts  and 
Studies,  i.  2.  Equally  good  is  the  edition  of  the  two  longer  texts  by 
P.  Franchi  de'  Cavalieri ,  Passio  Ss.  Perpetuae  et  Felicitatis,  Rome,  1896 
(Romische  Quartalschr.,  Supplement  5).  In  the  introduction  to  this  study 
Franchi  has  exhibited  the  evidence  in  favor  of  the  priority  of  Latin  text. 
A.  Fillet,  Les  martyrs  d'Afrique:  Histoire  de  S.  Perpe'tue  et  de  ses  com- 
pagnons,  Paris,  1885;  Neumann,  1.  c. ,  i.  171  — 176  299  f.  Cf.  v.  Geb 
hardt' s  «Acta»  for  both  Greek  and  Latin  texts. 

9.  ACTA  S.  PIONII.  —  Eusebius1  has   left  us  an   account    of  the 
martyrdom    of  St.    Pionius    and    other   Christians    at   Smyrna.      The 
narrative  has  reached  us  in  various  recensions.    While  Eusebius  places 
their  martyrdom  in  the  time  of  the  Antonines,  and  more  particularly 
in  the  reign  of  Marcus  Aurelius,   the  Acts  in  their  present  state   in 
dicate,  with  every  appearance  of  truth,    the  year  250  and  the  reign 
of  Decius. 

They  were  published  by  Ruinart,  2.  ed.,  pp.  137  — 151,  from  an  ancient 
Latin  version.  The  Greek  text  was  made  known  by  O.  v.  Gebhardt  from 
a  cod.  Ven.  Marc.  359,  in  Archiv  fiir  slavische  Philologie  (1896),  xviii. 
156 — 171,  and  in  his  «Acta».  He  has  also  promised  a  larger  edition  of 
this  text  with  the  Latin,  Slavonic  and  Armenian  versions.  B.  Aub6, 
1'Eglise  et  1'Etat  dans  la  seconde  moitie  du  III6  siecle,  Paris,  1885,  pp.  140 
to  154.  Zahn,  Forschungen  zur  Geschichte  des  neutestamentlichen  Kanons 
(1891),  iv.  271  f.  y.  A.  F.  Gregg,  The  Decian  Persecution,  Edinburgh, 
1897,  pp.  242 — 261  264 — 266. 

10.  ACTA  DISPUTATIONIS  S.  ACHATII.  —  Achatius  (Acacius),  pro 
bably  bishop  of  Antioch  in  Phrygia,  but  not  to  be  confounded  with 
Acacius,   bishop  of  Melitene  in  Asia  Minor,  underwent  an  interesting 
interrogatory  before  the  consular  magistrate  Marcianus;  after  examining 
the  records  of  which  Decius  allowed  him  to  go  free. 

The  Latin  text  of  the  official  records  is  in  Ruinart,  2.  ed.,  pp.  152  to 
155.  It  is  certainly  a  version  from  the  Greek;  cf.  Aubt,  1.  c.  pp.  181  to 
194,  and  the  «Acta»  of  Gebhardt. 

1  Hist,  eccl.,  iv.    15,  46 — 47. 





§  60.     General  conspectus. 

The  edict  of  toleration  issued  by  the  Augusti  in  January  or  February 
of  313  restored  peace  to  the  Christian  Church.  At  the  same  time 
it  was  only  a  lame  attempt  at  concealing  the  complete  overthrow 
of  the  heathen  state ;  there  could  be  but  one  step  more  from  toleration 
to  frank  preference  of  Christianity.  In  337  Constantine  received  the 
baptism  that  he  had  long  put  off.  His  sons  assumed  at  once  a 
hostile  attitude  towards  heathenism.  Julian  the  Apostate  (361 — 363) 
attempted  to  infuse  new  life  into  the  moribund  polytheism,  but  his 
efforts  only  made  more  manifest  the  incompatibility  between  the  old 
religion  and  the  exigencies  of  the  new  times.  In  392  the  worship 
of  the  gods  was  declared  high  treason  (crimen  maiestatis) 1 ;  and  as 
early  as  423  heathenism  was  looked  on  in  the  East  as  defunct2. 

During  the  campaign  against  the  Persians  in  which  he  met  his  death, 
Julian  wrote  three  books  against  the  Galilaeans,  xorca  FaXtXaitov,  of  which 
only  some  fragments  remain.  The  work  began  with  the  words:  «I  hold 
it  proper  for  me  to  expose  to  all  men  the  motives  which  have  persuaded 
me  that  the  mendacious  teaching  of  the  Galilasans  is  a  malicious  invention 
of  men.»  Most  of  the  extant  fragments  are  found  in  the  first  book  of  the 
(only  partially  preserved)  work  of  St.  Cyril  of  Alexandria  against  Julian 
(§  77>  3)-  They  have  been  carefully  collected  by  K.  J.  Neumann,  Scrip- 
torum  graecorum  qui  christianam  irnpugnaverunt  religionem  quae  super- 
sunt,  fasc.  in,  Leipzig,  1880.  The  same  writer  has  also  translated  them 
into  German:  Kaiser  Julians  Biicher  gegen  die  Christen,  Leipzig,  1880. 
Cf.  P.  Klimek,  Coniectanea  in  lulianum  et  Cyrilli  Alexandrini  contra  ilium 
libros  (Dissert,  inaug.) ,  Breslau,  1883;  Th.  Gollwitzer,  Observationes  cri- 
ticae  in  luliani  imperatoris  contra  Christianos  libros  (Dissert,  inaug.), 
Erlangen,  1886.  For  a  new  but  small  fragment  see  Neumann,  in  Theol. 
Literaturzeitung  (1899),  pp.  298 — 304;  G.  Negri ,  L'imperatore  Giuliano 

1  Cod.    Theodos.,  xvi.    10,    12.  £  lb.,  xvi.    10,   22. 

§    6o.      GENERAL    CONSPECTUS.  235 

1'Apostata.  Studio  storico,  Milano,  1901 ;  P.  Attar  d,  Julien  et  les  Chretiens: 
la  persecution  et  la  polemique  (third  and  last  volume  of  his  Julien  1'Apostat), 
Paris,  1902. 

Church  was  now  free  from  external  oppression,    she  suffered  all   the 
more    from  domestic  enemies.     Both  in    the  East  and  the  West  she 
was    obliged    to  defend    the    purity    of  her    faith  against   the  attacks 
of  heresy.     It  is  the  development  and  determination  of  ecclesiastical 
doctrine  that   lend    to    this    epoch  its    distinctive    character.     To   the 
East   particularly  falls  the  special  task  of  abstract  crystallization  and 
speculative  illustration  of  theological  truths  in  their  strict  significance. 
During    a    first    period    which    closes   with    the    Second    Ecumenical 
Council    of  Constantinople    (381)    the    true    divinity   and    the   perfect 
humanity  of  the  Redeemer   are  established  against  Arianism ,    Mace- 
donianism,  Sabellianism    and  Apollinarianism.     In   the  second  period 
which  ends  with  the  fourth   Ecumenical  Council   of  Chalcedon  (451) 
the  relation  of  the  human  and  the  divine  in  the  God-Man  is  rigorously 
defined  to  mean  that  the  two  natures  are  united  in  one  person,  but 
without  confusion  and  without  change. 

For  the  literary  history  of  Arianism,  Macedonianism,  Sabellianism  and 
Apollinarianism  cf.  §  61. 

3.  THEOLOGICAL    SCHOOLS    AND     TENDENCIES.    -     -    Under    these 
circumstances  ecclesiastical  science  grew  with  great  rapidity.   A  general 
peace  offered  favorable  opportunities  for  its  free  and  varied  develop 
ment,  while  the  conflict  with  heresy  opened  new  sources  of  intellectual 
growth.      Within   the    limits    of   ecclesiastical    theology   schools    and 
tendencies   arose  that  assumed  more    definite  outlines  than  in  earlier 
times,    and    through   assertion    of  their   special    characteristics    soon 
became  quite  opposed  one  to  another.     It  is  quite  easy  to  distinguish 
at    once    three  such  tendencies.     The    Neo-Alexandrine  school, 
having    freed    itself   from    the    subordinationist    errors    of   Origen  in 
his  Trinitarian  teaching,    continues  to    follow,    along  new  paths,    the 
impulse  of  its  great  master.     It    aims  at  a  speculative  knowledge  of 
the    truths    already    grasped    by    faith,    but    acknowledges    expressly 
that   the   Pistis   (Faith)   is    the   immovable   norm    of   all    true    Gnosis 
(Knowledge).     The  head  of  this  new  school  is  Athanasius ;  its  most 
brilliant  disciples  are  the  three*  Cappadocians :    Basil  the  Great,    Gre 
gory  of  Nazianzus,  and  Gregory  of  Nyssa.    It  is  true  that  Gregory  of 
Nyssa  defends  the  Origenistic  Apocatastasis,  while  somewhat  later  Didy- 
inus   the  Blind    and    Evagrius    Ponticus,    also  Origenists,    maintained 
both  the    pre-existence    of  souls    and    the  Apocatastasis;    both  were 
condemned.      Synesius    of   Cyrene    can    become    a    Christian    bishop, 
yet  remains  a  Hellene   «from  the  tip  of  his  toe  to  the  crown  of  his 
head».     Cyril,  the  bishop    of  Alexandria,  becomes    heir  to  both  the 
office  and  the  influence  of  an  Athanasius.     The  Antiochene  school 


continues  to  oppose  the  main  tendency  of  the  Alexandrine,  and  by 
reason  of  its  activity  in  the  interpretation  of  Scripture  is  known  as 
the  exegetical  school.  It  beholds  in  the  allegorical  interpretation  of  the 
Scripture,  as  taught  with  predilection  by  the  Alexandrine,  the  deadly 
enemy  of  all  sane  exegesis  and  it  lays  great  stress  on  an  objective,  i.  e. 
historico-grammatical,  rendering  of  the  text.  It  follows  with  apprehen 
sive  criticism  the  flight  of  Alexandrine  speculation.  Instead  of  depth 
and  warmth  of  sentiment  the  Antiochene  offers  an  extremely  sober 
intellectual  attitude,  quite  hostile  to  all  extravagance  of  thought.  The 
founder  of  this  school  is  the  martyr  Lucian  (§  44,  3),  the  teacher 
of  Arius.  Its  best-known  representatives  are  Diodorus  of  Tarsus, 
St.  John  Chrysostom,  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  Polychronius,  and 
Theodoret  of  Cyrus.  By  reason  of  their  rationalizing  tendencies,  most 
of  them,  particularly  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  came  into  conflict  with 
the  traditional  teachings  of  the  Church.  Precisely  at  the  height  of 
its  fame  (370 — 450)  almost  the  entire  school  was  Nestorian  in  doc 
trine.  Indeed,  the  struggle  between  Cyril  of  Alexandria  and  Nestorius 
was  really  the  hostile  embrace  of  the  Alexandrine  and  Antiochene 
tendencies.  Another  intellectual  movement  is  traceable  in  the  fourth 
century  and  may  be  described  as  an  excessive  Traditionalism.  It  is 
first  tangible  in  the  Anti-Origenistic  troubles,  and  later  on  rejected 
all  scientific  knowledge  and  criticism.  As  early  as  the  third  century 
some  writers,  notably  Methodius  of  Tyre,  had  protested  with  justice 
against  certain  theses  of  Origen.  However  the  fourth-century  re 
action  against  that  master's  influence,  as  headed  by  Epiphanius,  was 
more  a  matter  of  personal  interests  than  of  ecclesiastical  and  scientific 
opposition,  and  not  unfrequently  made  use  of  very  unworthy  means. 
These  Origenistic  controversies  are  the  first  herald  of  the  crisis  on 
which  Greek  theology  was  entering  -  -  after  the  middle  of  the  fifth 
century  its  vitality  begins  to  ebb  and  weaken. 

C.  Hornung,  Schola  Antiochena  de  S.  Scripturae  interpretatione  quo- 
nam  modo  sit  merita,  Neustadt,  1864;  H.  Kihn ,  Die  Bedeutung  der  anti- 
ochenischen  Schule  auf  dem  exegetischen  Gebiete,  nebst  einer  Abhandlung 
liber  die  altesten  christlichen  Schulen,  Weissenburg,  1866;  Ph.  Hergenrother , 
Die  antiochenische  Schule  und  ihre  Bedeutung  auf  exegetischem  Gebiete, 
Wurzburg,  1866. 

4.  ECCLESIASTICAL  LITERATURE.  —"During  this  period  ecclesiastical 
literature  reaches  its  highest  standard  of  perfection.  In  almost  every 
department  a  tireless  activity  reigns;  fields  hitherto  unworked  are 
now  cultivated  with  zeal.  --  Apologetics.  Apologetic  literature  con 
forms  to  the  changed  conditions  and  assumes  a  new  character.  It 
was  usually  only  in  self-defence  that  the  earlier  apologists  had  made 
positive  attacks  on  heathenism;  henceforth  all  the  apologies  for 
Christianity  take  up  a  polemical  attitude.  The  defenders  of  the  new 
religion  against  the  attacks  of  Julian  are  Gregory  of  Nazianzus,  John 

§    60.      GENERAL    CONSPECTUS.  237 

Chrysostom,  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  and  Philippus  Sidetes ;  against  the 
writings  of  Porphyrius,  Eusebius  of  Caesarea,  the  younger  Apollinaris 
and  Macarius  Magnes ;  Eusebius  also  enters  the  arena  against  Hierocles 
(or  rather  Philostratus).  The  apologies  with  more  general  tendency 
of  Eusebius,  Athanasius  and  Theodoretus  are  of  use  rather  in  attack 
than  in  defence.  Specially  anti-Jewish  works  were  composed  by  Gre 
gory  of  Nyssa  (?),  Diodorus  of  Tarsus,  and  John  Chrysostom.  Numerous 
champions  arose  against  the  rapid  and  widespread  growth  of  the 
system  of  the  Persian  Mani  (f  about  277),  which  propagated  under 
a  Christian  garb  ideas  that  were  essentially  Persian  dualism,  with 
its  two  kingdoms  of  light  and  darkness  and  their  corresponding  series 
of  aeons.  Polemics  and  Systematic  Theology.  The  doctrinal 

writings  are  mostly  occupied  with  the  burning  questions  of  the  time, 
and  are  usually  strictly  polemical  in  character.  In  the  fourth  century 
the  principal  opponents  of  heresy  are  Eusebius  of  Caesarea,  Atha 
nasius,  the  three  Cappadocians  (Gregory  of  Nazianzus,  Basil  the  Great, 
and  Gregory  of  Nyssa),  Didymus  the  Blind  and  Epiphanius;  in  the 
fifth  century  Cyril  of  Alexandria  and  Theodoret  of  Cyrus  are  most 
prominent.  The  « Epitome  of  Divine  Teachings »,  #etW  doffidTcov 
sxtTO/jty,  added  by  Theodoret  to  his  « Compendium  of  Heretical 
Fables »  is  a  noteworthy  attempt  at  a  systematic  theology.  Special 
points  of  doctrine  were  treated  in  a  markedly  positive  manner  by 
Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  Gregory  of  Nyssa ,  and  Epiphanius.  -  -  Biblical 
Theology.  No  attention  was  paid  to  textual  criticism.  Epiphanius  alone 
was  acquainted  with  Hebrew ;  he  also  made  remarkable  progress  in  the 
department  of  introductory  sciences  or  biblical  antiquities,  though  it  had 
been  cultivated  before  him  by  Eusebius  of  Caesarea.  Gregory  of  Nyssa 
undertook  occasionally  to  illustrate  and  defend  the  hermeneutical  prin 
ciples  of  the  Neo-Alexandrines,  while  Diodorus  of  Tarsus  and  Theo 
dore  of  Mopsuestia  upheld  the  principles  of  the  Antiochene  school. 
The  work  of  Adrianus,  entitled  « Introduction  to  the  Sacred  Scrip 
tures  »,  may  be  considered  as  an  Antiochene  manual  of  Hermeneutics. 
In  Christian  circles,  outside  of  Antioch  and  its  territory,  the  alle 
gorizing  method  maintained  its  supremacy,  and  wras  represented  by 
such  men  as  Eusebius  of  Caesarea,  Athanasius,  Gregory  of  Nyssa, 
Didymus  the  Blind,  and  Cyril  of  Alexandria.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  writers  of  the  Antiochene  school  were  remarkable  for  their  lite 
rary  productiveness;  the  commentaries  of  Theodoret  of  Cyrus  exhibit 
the  highest  degree  of  perfection,  both  in  form  and  contents,  although 
the  homilies  of  John  Chrysostom  are  not  inferior  as  specimens  of 
exegetical  skill.  -  -  Historical  TJieology.  Church  History,  unknown 
to  the  first  three  centuries,  reached  a  very  high  standard.  The 
creator  of  this  science  is  Eusebius  of  Caesarea.  His  labors  were 
continued  by  Socrates,  Sozomen  and  Theodoret.  The  Eunomian  Philo- 
storgius  wrote  a  history  of  the  Church,  in  the  interests  of  Arianism. 


Other  ecclesiastical  histories  written  in  this  period  have  been  lost, 
e.  g.  those  of  Philippus  Sidetes,  Hesychius  of  Jerusalem,  Timotheus 
of  Berytus  and  Sabinus  of  Heraclea.  The  latter's  work  was  the  first 
known  history  of  the "  Councils.  Histories  of  heresy  were  published 
by  Epiphanius  and  Theodoret.  —  Practical  Theology.  The  ascetico- 
moral  literature  of  the  time  was  the  outcome  of  Christian  monasticism 
whose  institutions  appeared  first  in  Egypt,  and  were  then  transplanted 
into  Palestine  by  Hilarion,  whence  Basil  the  Great  brought  them  to 
Asia  Minor.  Ascetical  manuals  for  ecclesiastics,  more  particularly 
for  monks,  were  written  by  Basil  the  Great,  Gregory  of  Nazianzus, 
and  Chrysostom.  To  a  similar  purpose  we  owe  the  Life  of  Saint 
Anthony  by  Athanasius,  and  the  collections  of  monastic  biographies 
by  Timotheus  of  Alexandria  and  Palladius.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  was  a 
brilliant  catechetical  expounder,  and  John  Chrysostom  a  homilist  and 
preacher  of  great  renown.  The  so-called  Apostolic  Constitutions,  that 
undertake  to  regulate  the  whole  course  of  Christian  and  ecclesiastical 
life,  belong  to  the  beginning  of  the  fifth  century,  and  were  probably 
the  work  of  Syrian  Apollinarists. 

ly,  in  poetry  and  song  the  Church  enters  upon  a  rivalry  with  the 
dying  heathenism  of  the  period,  though  in  this  department  of  litera 
ture  the  Greek  Church  failed  to  keep  pace  with  the  Syrian  and  the 
Latin  Churches.  Arius  attempted,  indeed,  to  render  his  heresy  po 
pular  by  means  of  folk-songs.  The  elder  and  the  younger  Apol- 
linaris  of  Laodicea,  Nonnus  (?),  and  the  Empress  Eudocia,  attempted 
with  doubtful  success  to  cast  Christian  thought  into  the  forms  of 
antique  poetry.  Pre-eminent  as  Christian  poets  during  the  fourth 
century  were  Gregory  of  Nazianzus  and  Synesius  of  Cyrene,  both  of 
whom  were  habitually  faithful  to  the  laws  of  antique  metre,  though  in 
Gregory  we  meet  already  new  forms  of  literary  art,  destined  to  awaken^ 
by  the  use  of  nobler  harmonies,  a  more  universal  echo  in  the  heart 
of  the  people.  Henceforth  rhythmic  verse,  with  its  accentuation  of 
certain  words,  tends  to  suppress  the  antique  quantitative  metre. 

§  61.     Arianism,   Macedonianism,  Sabellianism,   Apollinarianism. 

I.  ARIANISM.  -  -  We  possess  very  insufficient  knowledge  of  the 
Christology  of  the  martyr  Lucian  (§  44,  3);  it  was,  however,  decided 
ly  subordinationist ,  and  was  the  basis  on  which  Arius,  a  pres 
byter  of  Alexandria  (f  336),  began  to  teach  that  the,  Logos  or  Son 
of  God  was  a  creature  of  God '  (xTiapa,  : nutria),  called  into  being 
out  of  nothing  fi~  0>j%  uycwy),  before  the  "creation  of 'the  world,  by 
a  free  act  of  divine  will,  in  order  to  serve ' God  as  instrument  for 
the  creation  of  the  other  beings.  The  Son  did  not  always  exist  (odx 
aet  rp  o  '/cue);  there  was  a  time  when  he  was  not  '(yy  XOTS  ore  oi>% 
rjy)\  before  he  was  created  he  was  nothing;  like  all  other  creatures 


he  too  had  a  beginning  by  creation  (otiz  yv  xplv  jivr^ai,  d/JJ  dpyr/v 
TOV  xTiZeaftai  loyz  xa}  a'jTogj1.  The  Son  is,  therefore,  by  nature 
entirely  distinct  from  the  Father  (b  Mrfoc,  d)JMTpioQ  takv  dvopoiOQ 
xa~d  TidvTa  TTJQ  TOO  7tv.rpoc,  ouaiac,  xal  Idwrr^roq  £0T«y2;  sivoc,  TOU  olou 
YJJ.-C  o>jai.o.»  b  TiaTyp,  on  dvapyoc,  UTidpyet) 3.  He  is  called  the  Son  of 
God  in  the  same  sense  as  men  are  called  the  children  of  God,  and 
if  the  Scriptures  say  he  was  begotten,  that  « begetting » 'is  identical 
with  the  creative  act.  The  second  creature  of  God,  after  the  Logos, 
is  the  Holy  Spirit;  only  the  Father  is  true  God.  —  The  first  ecu 
menical  Council  at  Nicaea  (325)  condemned  the  teaching  of  Arius 
and  declared  that  the  Son  of  God  was  of  the  same  nature  or  sub 
stance  with  the  Father  (rbv  'jibv  -co~j  tizoo  .  -  .  opooumov  TW  xarpi). 
It  was  only  after  long  conflicts,  in  which  the  very  existence  of  the 
Church  was  apparently  at  stake,  that  the  decision  of  the  Council  was 
universally  accepted.  The  chief  literary  champions  of  Arianism  were 
the  sophist  Asterius  (f  about  330?),  the  Antiochene  deacon  Aetius 
(f  about  370),  the  bishops  Acacius  of  Csesarea  (f  366)  and  Eu- 
nomius  of  Cyzicus  (f  about  395).  Catholic  orthodoxy  was  represented 
principally  by  Athanasius,  and  the  three  Cappadocians :  Basil  the 
Great,  Gregory  of  Nazianzus,  and  Gregory  of  Nyssa. 

Some  fragments  of  the  writings  of  Arius  under  the  title  of  «A  Banquet» 
(9a/.£ia)  are  preserved  in  the  writings  of  Athanasius  (Orat.  c.  Arian.,  i. 
2 — 10 ;  De  synodis,  c.  15).  There  are  also  letters  of  Arius  to  Eusebius, 
bishop  ofNicomedia  (Theodoret.,  Hist,  eccl.,  i.  4),  to  Alexander,  bishop  of 
Alexandria  (Athan.,  De  synodis,  c.  16;  Epiph.,  Haer.  69,  7),  and  a  pro 
fession  of  faith  (Socrates,  Hist,  eccl.,  i.  26;  Sozomenus,  Hist,  eccl.,  ii.  27). 
According  to  Athanasius  the  « Banquet »  contained  also  poetical  passages. 
Philostorgius  says  (Hist,  eccl.,  ii.  2)  that  Arius  wrote  «songs  for  sailors  and 
millers  and  travellers,  and  other  similar  chants »,  destined  to  spread  his  teach 
ings  among  the  people.  See  (Cardinal)  Newmans  History  of  the  Arians. 
Le  Bachelet ,  Arianisme,  Diet,  de  la  Theol.,  Paris,  1903,  i.  1779 — 1863. 
Eusebius  of  Nicomedia  (f  341  or  342),  the  «Syllucianist»  or  fellow-disciple 
of  Arius  in  the  school  of  Lucian  (see  the  end  of  Arius'  letter  to  Eusebius), 
defended  at  once  in  a  series  of  letters  the  views  of  his  school-mate.  One 
letter,  that  to  Paulinus  of  Tyre,  has  reached  us  through  Theodoret  (Hist, 
eccl.,  i.  5);  a  fragment  of  a  letter  to  Arius  has  come  down  through  Atha 
nasius  (De  synodis,  c.  17),  where  there  are  also  excerpts  from  letters  written 
to  Arius  by  other  friends.  The  sophist  and  «Syllucianist»  Asterius  wrote  in 
defence  of  Arius  \  fragments  of  his  writings  are  quoted  by  Athanasius  (Orat. 
c.  Arian.,  i.  32;  ii.  37;  iii.  2;  De  synodis,  cc.  18 — 19,  and  elsewhere). 
Many  other  writings  of  this  sophist  have  perished  (scripsit  in  Epistolam  ad 
Romanes  et  in  Evangelia  ct  Psalmos  commentaries  et  multa  alia,  says  St.  Jerome, 
De  viris  ill.,  c.  94).  For  further  details  of  the  life  of  Asterius  cf.  Th.  Zahn, 
Marcellus  von  Ancyra,  Gotha,  1867,  pp.  38  flf.  A  little  work  of  Aetius  has 
been  preserved  by  Epiphanius  (Haer.  76,  n);  it  defends  in  47  theses  the 
motto  of  the  Arians  avofioio?  (sc.  6  uio-  T<O  -a-roi).  Acacius  of  Ccesarea  defended 
his  fellow-heretic  Asterius  against  an  attack  of  Marcellus,  bishop  of  Ancyra 

1  Arius ,  Thalia,   in  Athan.,   Orat.   c.  Arian.,  i.   5. 

2  Athan.,   Orat.  c.  xVrian.,   i.   6.  3  Athan.,  De  synodis,   c.    15. 



(§  61,  3);  fragments  of  this  apology  may  be  seen  in  Epiphanius  (Haer.  72, 
6 — I0).  There  is  also  a  Semiarian  confession  of  faith  laid  by  Acacius 
before  the  Synod  of  Seleucia  in  359  (Epiph.,  Haer.  73,  25).  Many  other 
of  the  writings  of  Acacius  have  disappeared  (Hier. ,  De  viris  ill.,  c.  98; 
Socrates,  Hist.  eccl. ,  ii.  4).  In  imitation  of  the  sophistical  dialectic  of 
Aetius,  his  disciple  Eunomius  called  theology  «a  technology »  (-s/voAojiav, 
Theod.,  Haer.  fab.,  iv.  3).  We  still  have  a  work  of  Eunomius,  entitled 
'A-oXoY^Tiy.oc ,  composed  about  360,  to  which  Basil  the  Great  wrote  an 
answer  (Migne,  PG.,  xxx.  835 — 868  among  the  works  of  Basil  the  Great; 
cf.  Goldhorn,  S.  Basilii  opera  dogm.  sel. ,  Leipzig,  1854,  pp.  580—615). 
In  the  work  of  Gregory  of  Nyssa  against  Eunomius  (cf.  Rettberg,  Marcel- 
liana,  Gottingen,  1794,  pp.  125—147)  some  brief^  fragments  are  pre 
served  of  the  counter-reply  of  Eunomius  entitled  u-£p  irjs  aroAoYiac  «~o- 
Xoyt'a,  written  probably  in  378,  as  an  answer  to  the  work  of  St.  Basil. 
For  a  formal  profession  of  faith  made  by  Eunomius  before  the  Emperor 
Theodosius,  about  381  or  383,  and  severely  criticised  by  Gregory  of  Nyssa 
in  the  second  book  of  his  work  against  Eunomius,  see  Rettberg,  1.  c.,  pp.  149 
to  169,  and  Goldhorn,  1.  c.,  pp.  618 — 629.  We  know  only  the  title  of  a 
commentary  by  Eunomius  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  mentioned  by 
Socrates  (Hist,  eccl.,  iv,  7);  there  existed  once  a  collection  of  forty  letters 
of  Eunomius  mentioned  by  Photius  (Bibl.  Cod.  138).  Eunomius  was  not 
so  much  an  advanced  disciple  of  Arianism  as  a  logical  student  and  teacher 
of  its  consequences;  cf.  C.  R.  W.  Klosse ,  Geschichte  und  Lehre  des  Eu 
nomius,  Kiel,  1833;  Fr.  Diekamp,  Die  Gotteslehre  des  hi.  Gregor  von  Nyssa, 
Miinster,  1896,  i.  122  ff;  Mason,  The  Five  Theological  Orations  of  Saint 
Gregory  of  Nazianzus  (the  first  four  are  against  Eunomius),  Cambridge, 
1899.  Fragments  of  a  Commentary  on  Isaias  written  by  the  Arian  bishop 
Theodore  of  Heraclea  (f  about  355),  were  published  by  Mai  (Migne,  PG., 
xviii.  1307 — 1378).  St.  Jerome  mentions  (Ep.  112,  20)  commentaries  of 
Theodore  on  the  Psalms  and  (Comm.  in  Matth.,  praef.)  on  the  Gospel  of 
Matthew.  Batiffol  has  shown  that  the  Arians  were  very  active  in  distri 
buting  the  acts  of  their  martyrs  and  biographies  of  their  prominent  mem 
bers:  P.  Batiffol,  Etudes  d'hagiographie  arienne.  La  passion  de  S.  Lucien 
d'Antioche,  in  Compte  Rendu  du  congres  scientif.  internat.  des  Catho- 
liques,  1891,  2.  section,  pp.  181 — 186;  Id.,  Etudes  d'hagiographie  arienne : 
Parthenius  de  Lampsaque,  in  Rom.  Quartalschr.  fiir  christl.  Altertumskunde 
u.  fiir  Kirchengesch.  (1892),  vi.  35  —  51;  cf.  ib.  (1893),  vii.  298 — 301; 
Id.,  Un  historiographe  anonyme  arien  du  4.  siecle,  ib.  (1895),  ^x-  57 — 97- 
On  the  Ecclesiastical  History  of  the  Eunomian  Philostorgius  see  §  79,  2. 

2.  MACEDONIANS!.  --  During  the  main  struggle  between  Catholic 
orthodoxy  and  Arianism,  divergent  doctrines  were  being  taught  among 
the  Arians  themselves.  The  Semiarians  rejected  the  dvojuotot;  of  the 
extreme  Arians,  and  put  in  its  place,  some  an  O/WIOQ,  some  an  bpoioumoQ. 
Nevertheless,  whenever  the  former  drew  near  to  the  Catholic  doc 
trine  fofiooumoQJ  concerning  the  Son  of  God,  they  fell  away  pro 
portionately  by  insisting  that  the  nature  of  the  Holy  Spirit  was  a 
created  and  not  a  divine  nature ;  hence  they  were  known  as  Pneumato- 
machi.  It  was  Macedonius ,  bishop  of  Constantinople  (t  after  360), 
the  esteemed  head  of  the  Semiarians  of  Thrace,  who  maintained  that 
the  Holy  Spirit  was  a  being  subordinate  to  the  Father  and  the  Son, 
a  creature  like  the  angels.  The  Second  Ecumenical  Council  (Con- 


stantinople,  381)  condemned  Macedonius  and  proclaimed  the  divinity 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  (TO  7iveu{j.a  TO  ayiov  ...  TO  obv  KOLTO}  xal  oiw 
aojUTcpoffXDvo'jfjisvov  xat  G!}ydo~a^6ii.£yov).  Throughout  this  controversy 
Athanasius,  the  three  Cappadocians,  and  Didymus  the  Blind  were 
the  theological  defenders  of  the  traditional  faith  of  the  Church. 

It  is  not  known  whether  Macedonius  left  any  writings.  Among  the  writers 
of  his  party  are  Eusebius  of  Emesa  (f  ca.  359),  Basil  of  Ancyra  (f  after 
360),  and  George  of  Laodicea  (f  after  360).  The  greater  part  of  the 
works  of  Eusebius  of  Emesa,  declared  <tinnumerabiles»  by  St.  Jerome  (De 
viris  ill.,  c.  91)  have  perished.  The  Greek  homilies  and  fragments  col 
lected  by  Augusti:  Eusebii  Emeseni  quae  supersunt  opuscula  graeca,  ad 
fidem  codd.  Vindobonensium  et  editionum  diligenter  expressa  et  adnotatio- 
nibus  hist,  et  phil.  illustrata  ab  /.  Chr.  G.  Augusti,  Elberfeld,  1829  (cf.  Migne, 
PG. ,  Ixxxvi.  i,  463  ff.),  belong  to  Eusebius  of  Alexandria,  Eusebius  of 
Caesarea  and  others:  see  J.  C.  Thilo ,  Uber  die  Schriften  des  Eusebius 
von  Alexandrien  und  des  Eusebius  von  Emesa,  Halle,  1832. 

Two  large  collections  of  Latin  homilies  were  formerly  attributed  with 
out  reason  to  Eusebius  of  Emesa:  a)  Homiliae  56  ad  populum  et  mon- 
achos,  in  reality  the  work  of  various  ecclesiastical  writers  of  Gaul  (Hila- 
rius  of  Aries,  Faustus  of  Reji,  Caesarius  of  Aries),  first  collected,  appa 
rently,  by  Eusebius  Bruno,  bishop  of  Angers  (f  1081).  They  are  printed 
in  Max.  Bibl.  vet.  Patr.,  Lyons,  1677,  vi.  618 — 675.  b)  Homiliae  145  (or 
rather  142)  in  evangelia  festosque  dies  totius  anni,  taken,  and  for  the 
most  part  verbally,  from  the  gospel-commentary  of  Bruno  of  Segni  (f  1123). 
They  are  in  Migne,  PL.,  clxv.  747 — 864,  among  the  works  of  Bruno  of 
Segni.  Cf.  for  these  two  collections  of  homilies  Eefller-Jungmann,  Institt. 
Patrol. ,  ii.  i,  3 — 4,  and  for  more  details  concerning  the  first  collection 
§  in,  2 — 3.  On  the  other  hand,  of  the  fourteen  opuscula  or  homilies 
extant  in  Latin  only  and  published  by  J.  Sirmond  (1643),  under  the 
name  of  Eusebius  of  Caesarea  (Migne,  PG.,  xxiv.  1047 — 1208),  at  least 
the  first  two  (De  fide  adversus  Sabellium,  i.  e.  against  Marcellus  of  Ancyra, 
cf.  §  61,  3)  are  the  work  of  Eusebius  of  Emesa.  A  still  unedited  discourse 
«On  resting  from  labor  on  the  Lord's  Day»  that  Zahn  inclines  to  con 
sider  the  work  of  Eusebius  of  Emesa,  is  printed  by  Zahn,  in  Skizzen  aus 
dem  Leben  der  alten  Kirche,  Erlangen,  1894,  pp.  278 — 286.  Basil  of 
Ancyra  and  George  of  Laodicea  were  joint  authors,  in  the  name  of  their 
party,  of  a  doctrinal  memorial  that  Epiphanius  has  preserved  (Haer.  73, 
12 — 22).  Other  works  of  Basil  of  Ancyra  have  perished  (Hicr.,  De  viris 
ill.,  c.  89) ;  cf.  y.  Schladebach,  Basilius  von  Ancyra  (Inaug.-Diss.),  Leipzig, 
1898;  F.  Cavallera,  Le  «De  virginitate»  de  Basile  d'Ancyre,  in  Revue 
d'histoire  ecclesiastique  (1905),  pp.  5  —  15.  The  works  of  George  of  Lao 
dicea  have  also  perished;  cf.  J.  Draseke ,  Gesammelte  patristische  Unter- 
suchungen,  Altona,  1889,  pp.  14 — 24.  On  the  ecclesiastical  history  of  the 
Macedonian  Sabinus  of  Heraclea  see  §  79,  2. 

3.  SABELLIANISM.  —  In  order  to  emphasize  more  forcibly  the 
unity  of  nature  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son,  Marcellus,  bishop  of 
Ancyra  in  Galatia  (f  ca.  374),  went  so  far  as  to  suppress  the  dis 
tinction  of  persons  in  the  divine  nature.  According  to  him  the  Logos 
is  the  eternal  indwelling  power  of  God,  which  manifests  itself  in 
creation  of  the  world  as  operative  power  (svspYsta  dpaffTixfJ,  and 
dwells  in  Christ  for  the  purpose  of  redeeming  and  perfecting  the 

BARDENHEWER-SHAHAN,  Patrology.  1 6 


human  race.  This  God-Man  is  called  and  is  Son  of  God.  The  Logos 
is  not  begotten;  before  the  Incarnation  there  was  no  Son  of  God. 
Because  of  its  affinity  with  the  modalistic  Monarchianism  of  the  pres 
byter  Sabellius  (first  half  of  the  third  century)  this  teaching  of  Mar- 
cellus  was  known  in  the  East  as  Sabellianism.  Owing  to  the  op 
position  of  Eusebius  of  Caesarea  and  Athanasius  it  met  with  but  few 

In  his  Contra  Marcellum  and  De  eccksiastica  theologia  Eusebius  of  Cae- 
sarea  has  preserved  some  fragments  of  the  work  of  Marcellus  De  subiec- 
tione  Domini  Christi  (-sot  ~r^  TOO  uiou  OTtoTa-pjc ;  cf.  i  Cor.  xv.  28)  written 
against  the  Arian  Asterius  (§  61,  i).  Epiphanius  quotes  (Haer.  72)  a  letter 
of  Marcellus  to  Pope  Julius  of  the  year  337  or  338  and  the  already  (§  61,  i) 
mentioned  fragments  of  the  work  of  Acacius  against  Marcellus,  also  a  pro 
fession  of  faith  made  by  the  followers  of  Marcellus.  Other  writings  of 
Marcellus,  unknown  to  us,  are  mentioned  by  St.  Jerome  (De  viris  ill.,  c.  86). 
All  that  remains  is  to  be  found  in  Chr.  H.  G.  Rettberg,  Marcelliana,  Got- 
tingen,  1794;  the  so-called  Legatio  Eitgenii  diaconi  ad  S.  Athanasium  pro 
causa  Marcelli  is  in  Migne,  PG.,  xviii.  1301 — 1306.  C.  R.  W.  Klose,  Ge- 
schichte  und  Lehre  des  Marcellus  und  Photinus,  Hamburg,  1837;  FT-  -A. 
Willenborgy  Uber  die  Orthodoxie  des  Marcellus  von  Ancyra,  Miinster,  1859; 
Th.  Zahn,  Marcellus  von  Ancyra,  Gotha,  1867;  Fr.  Loofs,  Die  Trinitats- 
lehre  Marcells  von  Ancyra  und  ihr  Verhaltnis  zur  alteren  Tradition,  Sitzungs- 
berichte  der  k.  preuft.  Akad.  der  Wissensch.,  Berlin,  1902.  --  Photinus, 
bishop  of  Sirmium  (f  ca.  376),  was  an  Asiatic  like  Marcellus,  and  his  dis 
ciple.  Taking  for  granted  that  there  was  in  God  but  one  person,  he  taught 
that  our  Lord  was  a  man  miraculously  born ,  who  had  attained  the  divine 
dignity  by  reason  of  his  high  moral  development.  The  numerous  Greek 
and  Latin  writings  of  Photinus  (Hier.,  De  viris  ill.,  c.  107  ;  Vine.  Lerin.,  Com- 
monit,  c.  16)  have  all  perished;  cf.  Zahn,  1.  c.,  p.  189  ff. 

4.  APOLLINARIANISM.  —  Apollinaris,  bishop  of  Laodicea  in  Syria 
(f  ca.  390),  believed  that  the  true  divinity  of  the  Redeemer  could 
be  saved  only  by  the  sacrifice  of  his  perfect  humanity;  otherwise 
the  union  of  true  divinity  and  perfect  humanity  would  lead  to  the 
admission  of  two  Sons  of  God ,  one  by  nature  and  the  other  by 
adoption  because,  he  says,  two  beings,  perfect  in  themselves,  can 
never  unite  in  one  being  (3>jo  rs/sta  ev  ^Aa^o.t  oo  d  Marat)1. 
Moreover,  a  perfect  humanity  would  include  a  human  will,  and 
therefore  the  possibility  of  sin  on  the  part  of  the  Redeemer  (07:00 
Yap  rlhtoQ  av&pcoTtos ,  sxst  xcu  apapria) 2.  The  Son  of  God  did 
really  assume  a  living  flesh  (caps),  an  animated  body,  but  it  was 
the  divinity  itself  that  took  the  place  of  the  human  VOOQ  or  of 
the  human  wet  pa.  This  doctrine  was  opposed  among  others  by 
St.  Gregory  of  Nazianzus,  St.  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  and  in  particular 
by  St.  Athanasius,  or  the  author  (or  authors)  of  the  two  books 
against  Apollinaris  that  appear  among  the  works  of  St.  Athanasius. 
The  Second  Ecumenical  Council  (Constantinople,  381),  condemned 
(in  its  first  canon)  the  heresy  of  the  Apollinarists.  Apollinaris  was 

1  Athan.,   Contra  Apoll.,  i.   2.  2  Ib. 


one  of  the  most  fertile  and  versatile  ecclesiastical  writers  of  his 
day.  He  was  primarily  an  exegete,  and  according  to  St.  Jerome1 
wrote  countless  volumes  on  the  Holy  Scriptures.  The  fragments  of 
his  writings  are  scattered  through  many  Catenae,  where  they  await 
collection  and  critical  study.  There  is  extant 2  a  complete  paraphrase 
of  the  Psalms  in  hexameters,  richly  interwoven  with  reminiscences 
of  the  old  Hellenic  poets.  Precisely  for  that  reason  the  peculiar 
color  and  spirit  of  the  ancient  Hebrew  chants  are  lost.  There  is  so 
far  no  good  reason  for  admitting  the  hypothesis  of  Draseke  that  the 
famous  metrical  paraphrase  of  St.  John's  Gospel3  written  about  the 
end  of  the  fourth  century  and  attributed  to  the  famous  heathen  poet 
Nonnus  of  Panopolis,  is  really  the  work  of  Apollinaris.  His  Father, 
the  elder  Apollinaris,  a  priest  of  Laodicea,  had  already  attempted  to 
clothe  the  Christian  Scriptures  in  the  garb  of  antique  Hellenic  poetry, 
but  none  of  his  works  have  reached  us.  Both  father  and  son  enter 
tained  the  hope  that  by  such  labors  they  would  be  able  to  compensate 
the  Christians  for  the  loss  of  the  heathen  classics  and  to  win  over  the 
heathens  to  the  religion  of  Christ.  Also  the  thirty  books  of  the 
younger  Apollinaris  against  the  Neoplatonist  Porphyry  (f  ca.  304)  that 
merited  special  praise  from  St.  Jerome 4  have  not  reached  us.  Other 
works  not  mentioned  by  Jerome,  relating  to  the  Trinity  and  to 
Christology,  seemed  also  lost,  with  the  exception  of  some  fragments 
especially  from  his  « Demonstration  of  the  Incarnation  of  God  in  the 
image  of  Man »  (dnodet&Q  xsp\  TTJQ  ft  stag  aapxwascoc,  TTJQ  xaft'  ojutolaMTw 
dv&pwTtouJ,  that  appear  in  the  refutation  of  this  work  by  St.  Gregory 
of  Nyssa  (see  §  69,  3).  It  is  worthy  of  note  that  Leontius  of  Byzantium 
or  the  author  of  Adversus  fraudes  Apollinaristarum 5  maintained 
that  Apollinarists  and  Monophysites  had  put  in  circulation  certain 
writings  of  Apollinaris  (TWSQ  ra>v  *Anohvapioo  Xdfwv)  under  the  authori 
tative  names  of  SS.  Gregorius  Thaumaturgus,  Athanasius,  and  Julius 
(of  Rome).  The  researches  of  Caspari  (1879)  have  made  it  certain  that 
the  work  -q  pipoq  nianc,  that  went  under  the  name  of  Gregorius 
Thaumaturgus  (§  47,  5)  is  really  a  work  of  Apollinaris.  The  pro 
fession  of  faith  7csp\  TTJC,  ffapxaxrewQ  TOO  ftsou  Mfou ,  attributed  to 
Athanasius  (§  63,  3),  is  also  very  probably  from  the  pen  of  Apol 
linaris.  Similarly  several  letters  were  sent  abroad  under  the  name  of 
Pope  Julius  I.  (§  63,  14)  that  were  very  probably  written  by  Apol 
linaris  or  one  of  his  earliest  disciples.  Draseke  claims  for  Apol 
linaris  a  number  of  other  works,  namely  the  Cohortatio  ad  Gentiles 
and  the  Expositio  fidei ,  printed  among  the  works  of  St.  Justin 
Martyr  (§  17,  5  —  6),  also  three  homilies  ascribed  to  Gregory  Thaumat 
urgus  (§  47,  5),  the  fourth  and  fifth  books  of  St.  Basil's  work 

1  De  viris  ill.,  c.    104.  2  Migne,  PG.,  xxxiii.    1313 — 1538. 

3  Ib.,  xliii.   749  —  1228.  4  Hier.,  De  viris  ill.,  c.    104. 

5  Migne,  PG.,  Ixxxvi.   2,    1948. 



against  Eunomius  (§  67,  4),  and  the  first  three  of  the  seven  dia 
logues  De  Trinitate  current  under  the  name  of  Theodoret  of  Cyrus 
(§  78,  8).  The  arguments  of  Draseke  are  very  general  and  would 
probably  collapse  after  a  serious  study  of  any  one  of  these  works 

y.  Drdseke,  Apollinarios  von  Laodicea.  Sein  Leben  und  seine  Schriften. 
Nebst  einem  Anhang:  Apollinarii  Laodiceni  quae  stipersunt  dogmatica 
(Texte  und  Untersuchungen),  Leipzig,  1892,  vii.  3 — 4.  This  work  includes 
the  results  of  many  special  researches  published  in  preceding  years.  The 
appendix  contains  a  correct  reprint  from  former  editions  of  Antirrheticus 
contra  Eunomium  (=  Pseudo-Basilius  M. ,  Adv.  Eun.,  iv — v),  Dialog!  de 
S.  Trinitate  (==  Pseudo-Theodoretus,  Dialogi  de  Trinitate,  i — iii),  De  Trini 
tate  (=  Pseudo-Justinus  M. ,  Expositio  fidei),  Fidei  expositio  (=  Pseudo- 
Gregorius  Thaumat.,  YJ  xata  jjispoc  -iVuis),  De  divina  incarnatione  libri  frag- 
menta,  and  many  smaller  remnants.  A.  Spasskij  has  reached  quite  op 
posite  conclusions  in  his  (Russian)  work  on  Apollinarios  of  Laodicea, 
Sergiev,  1895;  see  the  remarks  of  Bonwetsch,  in  Byzant.  Zeitschr.  (1897), 
vi.  175 — 177.  For  exegetical  fragments  on  Proverbs,  Ezechiel  and  Isaias, 
attributed  to  Apollinaris,  see  A.  Mai,  Nova  Patr.  Bibl.,  Rome,  1854,  vii. 
part.  2,  76 — 80  82—91  128—130.  Specimens  of  a  critical  edition  of  the 
paraphrase  of  the  Psalms  mentioned  above  were  published  by  A.  Ludwich, 
Konigsberg,  Psalms  i — 3  (1880,  Progr.),  4 — -8  (iSSi,  Progr.).  The  very 
extensive  interpolation  of  the  text  may  be  traced  back  to  the  noted  forger 
Jacob  Diassorinos  (f  1563).  See  A.  Ludwich,  in  Byzant.  Zeitschr.  (1892),  i. 
292—301 ;  y.  Draseke,  Die  Abfassungszeit  der  Psalmen-Para phrase  des  Apolr 
linarios  von  Laodicea,  in  Zeitschr.  fur  wissenschaftl.  Theol.  (1889),  xxxii. 
1 08 — 120.  Id.,  Zu  Apollinarios  von  Laodicea,  «Ermunterungsschrift  an  die 
Hellenen»,  in  Zeitschr.  f.  wissenschaftl.  Theol.  (1903),  xlvi.  407 — 433.  For 
new  editions  of  the  paraphrase  of  the  Gospel  of  Saint  John,  usually  attributed 
to  Nonnus  of  Panopolis,  we  are  indebted  to  Fr.  Passow,  Leipzig,  1834, 
and  A.  Scheindler,  Leipzig,  1881  (in  both  the  text  of  the  Gospel  is  in 
cluded).  Janssen,  Das  Johannesevangelium  nach  der  Paraphrase  des  Non 
nus  Panopolitanus ,  mit  einem  ausfiihrlichen  kritischen  Apparat,  Leipzig, 
1903,  in  Texte  und  Untersuchungen,  viii.  4.  The  hypothesis  of  the  author 
ship  of  Apollinaris  was  put  forward  by  Draseke,  in  Theol.  Literaturzeitung 
(1891),  p.  332,  and  in  Wochenschrift  fur  klass.  Philol.  (1893),  p.  349. 
On  the  merit  of  this  hypothesis,  the  character  of  the  paraphrase  and  the 
most  recent  literature,  cf.  Bardenhewer,  art.  Nonnus,  in  Wetzer  and  Welte, 
Kirchenlexikon ,  2.  ed. ,  also  G.  Voisin ,  L'Apollinarisme ,  Paris,  1901; 
cf.  Id,,  Revue  d'hist.  eccl.  (1902),  iii.  33  —  55  239  —  252;  J.  Flemming  and 
H.  Lietzmann,  Apollinaristische  Schriften,  syrisch  mit  den  griechischen 
Texten  und  einem  syrisch-griechischen  Wortregister,  in  Abhhandl.  der  k. 
Gesellsch.  der  Wissensch.  zu  Gottingen  (1904).  We  have  lost  the  Pro 
fession  of  faith  of  Vitalis,  bishop  of  Antioch,  one  of  the  earliest  and  most 
active  of  the  disciples  of  Apollinaris.  It  is  mentioned  by  St.  Gregory  of 
Nazianzus  (Ep.  102,  ad  Cledon.). 

After   the    death    of  their    master    the  Apollinarists    divided   into   two 

parties,    the    followers   of  Polemon   (or  Polemius]    and   those   of  Valentinus ; 

'.   C.  Z.   Gieseler,  Commentat.  qua  Monophysitarum  veterum  variae  de 

:i  persona   opiniones   illustrantur  partic.  II  (Progr.),    Gottingen,   1838, 

pp.   1 8— 21,  where  the    extant    fragments  of  Polemon's  writings  are  found 

-20).   The  author  of  the  Adv.  fraudes  Apollinaristarum  (Migne,  PG., 

<xvi.  2,  1948—1969)  has  saved  a  few  fragments  of  the  writings  of  Valen- 

tmus,  the  adversary  of  Polemon,  and  of  those  of  his  disciple  and  follower, 

§    62.      EUSEBIUS    OF    C^ESAREA.  245 

Timotheus,  bishop  of  Berytus ;  cf.  Fr.  Loofs,  Leontius  von  Byzanz,  Leipzig, 
1887,  pp.  84  ff.  For  the  Ecclesiastical  History  of  Leontius  see  §  79,  2. 
Valentinus  quotes  the  Christological  profession  of  faith  of  an  Apollinarist 
bishop  Job  (Migne,  1.  c.,  1952  3320;  cf.  Caspari,  Alte  und  neue  Quellen 
zur  Geschichte  des  Taufsymbols,  Christiania,  1879,  P-  24-)-  Tne  forger 
of  the  letters  of  St.  Ignatius  of  Antioch,  in  all  probability  identical  w^ith 
the  compiler  of  the  Apostolic  Constitutions,  leaves  no  doubt  as  to  his 
Apollinarian  tenets  (§  9,  i).  H.  Lietzmann,  Apollinaris  von  Laodicea  und 
seine  Schule,  Tubingen,  1904. 

§  62.    Eusebius  of  Csesarea. 

I .  HIS  LIFE.  -  -  The  golden  age  of  patristic  literature  opens  with 
the  splendid  productions  of  Eusebius  Pamphili,  bishop  of  Csesarea  in 
Palestine  (ca.  265  to  ca.  340).  This  land  was  at  once  his  home  and 
the  scene  of  his  literary  activity.  It  was  in  Csesarea,  which  later 
became  his  episcopal  see,  that  he  received  his  intellectual  training. 
In  this  city  he  enjoyed  for  many  years  the  society  of  the  learned 
priest  Pamphilus,  whose  name  he  assumed  as  a  token  of  veneration 
and  gratitude;  hence  he  was  known  as  Eusebius  Pamphili,  i.  e.  the 
spiritual  son  of  Pamphilus.  When  the  latter  was  thrown  into  prison 
during  the  persecution  of  Maximinus  Daza,  Eusebius  accompanied 
him  and  worked  with  him  at  an  Apology  for  Origen  (§  45,  i).  In 
309  Pamphilus  died  as  martyr;  at  a  later  date  Eusebius  honored  his 
memory  by  a  biography  in  three  books  (§  45,  i).  He  escaped 
further  dangers  in  the  persecution  by  his  flight  from  Csesarea  to 
Tyre,  and  thence  into  Egypt.  Here  he  was  seized  and  imprisoned, 
but  it  is  uncertain  how  long  he  suffered  as  a  witness  to  the  Christian 
faith.  At  the  close  of  the  persecution  he  returned  to  Csesarea,  pro 
bably  in  313,  became  its  bishop,  and  a  very  influential  one,  for  he 
enjoyed  in  a  special  degree  the  favor  of  Constantine.  His  defects  are 
henceforth  no  less  manifest  than  his  good  qualities :  we  behold  in  him 
a  lack  of  personal  independence  and  of  clearness  in  his  doctrinal  ideas, 
that  very  seriously  affect  his  work  as  a  Christian  bishop.  He  does 
not  grasp  the  importance  and  drift  of  the  controversy  about  the 
Trinity.  He  is  constantly  in  the  field  as  a  peace-maker,  with  sug 
gestions  of  mutual  concessions  on  the  basis  of  a  recognition  of  the 
true  divinity  of  the  Redeemer  in  simply  biblical  terms.  He  believed 
that  the  Homoousian  doctrine  of  Athanasius  led  logically  to  Sabel- 
lianism;  this  phantom  was  ever  before  his  eyes  and  was  the  motive 
which  drew  him  ever  more  deeply  within  the  orbit  of  Arianism.  At 
the  Council  of  Nicsea  (325)  he  sought  to  take  up  a  conciliatory  at 
titude,  but  at  the  express  wish  of  the  Emperor  signed  the  profession 
of  faith  drawn  up  by  the  Council.  It  is  significant,  however,  that  the 
term  o/jtooumoQ  never  occurs  in  his  writings,  not  even  in  those  com 
posed  after  the  Council  of  Nicaea.  He  held  communion  with  the 
Arians  and  may  have  influenced  the  imperial  measures  against  the 
orthodox  bishops.  He  certainly  took  a  prominent  part  in  the 


Council  of  Antioch  (330)  which  deposed  Eustathius,  bishop  of  that 
city  and  an  active  opponent  of  Arianism;  he  was  also  a  member 
of  the  Synod  of  Tyre  (335)  that  meted  out  a  similar  treatment  to 
Athanasius,  the  head  of  the  orthodox  party.  More  than  once  Eu- 
sebius  composed  public  laudations  of  Constantine.  On  the  occasion 
of  the  Emperor's  «tricennalia»  or  thirtieth  anniversary  of  the  as 
sumption  of  the  reins  of  government  (July  25.,  335),  he  delivered  a 
panegyric  on  Constantine  (elq  KajvcravTuov  TOV  fiaauia  TptaxovTa- 
svqptxuQj1.  When  the  emperor  died  (May  22.,  337)  he  dedicated  to 
his  memory  a  lengthy  eulogium  remarkable  for  declamation  rather 
than  for  genuine  eloquence  (SLQ  rov  KwvoTavclvoo  TOO  ^aadlcoQ  ftiov 
Xofoi  3')  2. 

2.  HISTORICAL  WORKS.  -  -  Among  his  numerous  writings  none 
have  received  such  unqualified  approval,  dating  from  his  own  time,  as 
the  great  historical  works  known  as  the  «Chronicle»  and  the  « Eccle 
siastical  History ».  They  have  earned  for  him  such  titles  as  the 
« Christian  Herodotus »  and  « Father  of  Church  History ».  The  Chroni 
cle3  bears  the  name  of  « Divers  Histories »  (TtavTodaTrq  iawpia)  and 
is  divided  into  two  parts:  the  %povofp<upla.  and  the  xavcov  ypovtxoq. 
He  says  in  the  preface  that  it  is  his  purpose  to  furnish  an  ethno 
graphic  chronology  based  on  the  historical  monuments  of  the  nations 
(I.  part),  and  then  to  attempt  (II.  part)  a  synchronistic  co-ordination 
and  concordance  of  these  historical  data.  Before  him  Julius  Afri- 
canus  had  attempted  to  harmonize  the  historical  traditions  of  the 
Gentiles  and  the  Jews  (§  43,  2);  it  is  to  the  credit  of  Eusebius  that 
he  accomplished  this  task  and  that  his  calculations  were  accepted 
as  successful.  Throughout  his  work  runs  the  dominant  idea  of  a 
close  relation  between  the  most  remote  history  and  the  history  of  his 
own  time;  the  influence  that  these  views  of  Eusebius  exercised 
on  all  later  historiography  is  simply  incalculable.  Eusebius  wrote 
this  work  for  Orientals,  but  St.  Jerome  transplanted  to  the  West 
the  historical  ideas  of  the  « Chronicle »,  by  translating  the  2.  part  of 
it  into  Latin,  and  continued  it  to  379  (a.  Abr.  2395;  cf.  §  93,  6) 
i.  e.  he  added  fifty-four  years  to  the  historical  text  of  Eusebius,  who 
had  stopped  at  325  (a.  Abr.  2341).  The  first  part  of  the  Chronicle 
was  unknown  to  us  until  the  publication  of  the  Armenian  version. 
The  Greek  text  of  both  parts  has  perished,  save  for  some  fragments. 

In  its  first  edition  the  Ecclesiastical  History  of  Eusebius  (sxxtyma- 
ffrtxvj  toropia)  4  described  the  vicissitudes  of  the  Church  from  its  foun 
dation  to  the  victories  of  Constantine  over  Maxentius  (October  28.,  312), 
and  of  Licinius  over  Maximinus  Daza  (April  30.,  313),  both  of  which 
victories  are  treated  by  Eusebius  as  the  triumph  of  Christianity  over 
paganism.  These  victories  are  the  subject  of  the  last  chapter  in  the 

1  Migne,  PG.,  xx.   1315—1540.  2  lb->  xx    9o5_  I23O> 

3  Ib.,  xix.  *  Ib.,  xx. 

§    62.      EUSEBIUS    OF    C.ESAREA.  247 

ninth  book  of  the  History,  and  the  concluding  words  are  evidently 
written  as  a  suitable  ending  to  the  whole  work.  At  a  later  date  Eusebius 
added  a  tenth  book,  which  brings  the  history  of  the  Church  down  to  the 
defeat  of  Licinius  (July  3.,  323)  i.  e.  to  the  sole  rulership  of  Constantine. 
The  Ecclesiastical  History  is  a  very  rich  collection  of  historical  facts, 
documents,  and  excerpts  from  a  multitude  of  writings  belonging  to  the 
golden  youth  of  the  Christian  Church.  The  value  of  these  materials 
is  beyond  all  calculation ,  although  the  text  in  which  they  are  in 
corporated,  can  lay  claim  neither  to  completeness  of  narrative  net- 
to  an  evenly  distributed 'treatment  of  events,  much  less  to  an  orderly 
and  genetic  exposition  of  its  store  of  historical  information.  On  the 
other  hand,  it  is  a  « source-book »  in  the  fullest  sense  of  the  word. 
Eusebius  has  been  reproached  with  deliberate  falsification  of  facts, 
but  the  reproach  cannot  be  proved,  although  here  and  there  his 
personal  feelings  of  favor  or  of  dislike  may  have  influenced  his  judg 
ment  or  hindered  breadth  of  view.  We  owe  to  Rufmus  (§  92,  3) 
a  Latin  paraphrase  of  the  Church  History.  It  is  easier  to  defend 
the  historical  value  of  this  work  than  that  of  the  statements  con 
cerning  Constantine  (see  §  62,  i)  wherein  he  has  been  often  reproached 
with  intentional  alteration  of  the  facts  of  history.  In  them  Eusebius 
is  less  a  historian  than  a  panegyrist,  who  now  palliates  and  now 
exaggerates.  In  opposition  to  contemporary  pagan  writers  he  aims  at 
setting  in  a  clear  light  the  Christian  and  ecclesiastical  sentiments  of 
the  emperor.  -  -  We  have  lost  a  collection  of  ancient  Acts  of  the 
martyrs  compiled  by  Eusebius  (§  59,  i);  on  the  other  hand,  we 
possess  still  a  little  work  written  by  him  on  the  contemporary  martyrs 
of  Palestine.  It  has  reached  us  in  two  recensions:  a  shorter  one  in 
Greek,  usually  printed  as  an  appendix  to  the  eighth  book  of  the 
Church  History,  and  a  longer  one,  the  complete  text  of  which  is 
extant  only  in  a  Syriac  version. 

3.  EXEGETICAL  WORKS.  —  Besides  his  superior  gifts  as  a  historian 
Eusebius  possessed  a  great  aptitude  for  exegetical  studies.  He  is  lack 
ing,  however,  in  sound  and  clear  hermeneutical  principles;  it  is  sub 
stantially  the  manner  and  method  of  Origen  that  predominate  in  his 
exegetical  writings.  He  must  have  writt